Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

SOCIAL SECURITY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Means Testing

Miss Anne McIntosh: What representations he has received on the impact of means testing on the take-up of benefits; and if he will make a statement. [141802]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): The fact that almost three quarters of a million people have responded to the latest minimum income guarantee take-up campaign suggests that, until now, lack of awareness was probably a more significant influence.

Miss McIntosh: Can the Secretary of State explain why he has cancelled the quinquennial review of the Benefits Agency? Is the Department of Social Security trying to hide something sinister, or is he trying to frustrate the House's scrutiny of the work of the Department and the agency—perhaps to prevent the discovery that the Government's means-testing policy of

the past five years has resulted in lower benefits take-up rates? Is he concerned that his previously clean-shaven image is being severely tarnished?

Mr. Darling: I can see that the hon. Lady spent a weekend practising her question. In fact, she asked two questions. As it is Christmas, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will allow me to address both important issues that she raised.
First, the House will be aware that, on 15 March this year, I think, the Prime Minister announced that the Government intended to bring together the Employment Service and those parts of the Benefits Agency that deal with people of working of age to create a new agency, which will be established next year. Consequently, as the Government have already decided to bring together the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service, the usual quinquennial review of the Benefits Agency—which, in simple terms, is conducted to establish whether the Benefits Agency should continue for another five years—was clearly rendered redundant. That is why there is no quinquennial review.
Additionally—for the sake of completeness—the hon. Lady will be aware that, at about the same time, I announced our intention to establish a separate organisation dealing with pensions and pensioners' interests. That deals with the first part of her question.
Secondly, one of the interesting facts to emerge from the take-up campaign is that three quarters of a million people have responded to that campaign. To me, that implies that stigma, or reluctance to claim, is not the big disadvantage that people thought it was. The fact that three quarters of a million people have responded to the take-up campaign implies that they are interested and would like to know more about the minimum income guarantee.
It is interesting also that, of those who did not receive the minimum income guarantee, just over half failed to do so because they had higher incomes than the current minimum income guarantee—which is why we are increasing the minimum income guarantee to £92 next year, and to


£100 in 2003—and 41 per cent. failed because they had too much money in the bank. As the hon. Lady will be aware, we are the first Government to get rid of the completely arbitrary and unreasonable limits that stop people receiving help just because they have modest sums in the bank. That is why we propose to scrap the capital rules.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will know that many lone parents are working very hard just to keep their heads above water. As failure to claim the guarantee is, in many cases, just ignorance, and as the world is full of ad men trying to get money out of the Government, will my right hon. Friend find someone very imaginative to do a campaign to bring that very excellent support to the attention of those who most need it?

Mr. Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend that we want to get all those who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee to claim it. That is why we ran the advertising campaign to which three quarters of a million people have responded. However, as I told the House a moment ago, until now, the problem has been that many people who would have qualified for help have failed to do so because there is such a low limit on the sum that they can have in the bank before help is excluded. That is why we are scrapping the capital limits, as many of us have advocated doing for years. Additionally, in two years, we are introducing the pension credit so that, for the first time, saving is rewarded. We will be able to say to people that it always pays to save. Interestingly, Conservative Members oppose both those measures.

Mr. Steve Webb: May I raise the issue of a benefit that has one of the lowest take-up rates—council tax benefit? A couple of weeks ago, the Department of Social Security published figures showing that 1 million pensioners—about 1,500 people per constituency—are failing to claim an average of £300 each to which they are entitled. Given that the number of people is, if anything, increasing slightly, is the Minister concerned about it? What does he plan to do specifically about council tax benefit?

Mr. Darling: We are anxious that those who are entitled to benefit should receive it. Although we cannot make people claim money to which they may be entitled but which, for one reason or another, they do not want to claim, I think that two measures will help pensioners. First, as I said in reply to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), we are establishing a new organisation specifically to ensure that we can do more to get to pensioners money to which they are entitled far more quickly and effectively.
Secondly, we are greatly simplifying the claims process and the claim form itself. As I have said before, I am confident that we can get rid of the current 40-page claim form and reduce it to fewer than 10 pages. I think that that will be a great help to all those who are entitled to benefits.

Mr. Ian Davidson: Has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State paid adequate attention to the percentage of poorest people applying to take up benefits? I appreciate that many more people are filling in the forms, but many of us are not convinced that

benefits are reaching those in greatest need. Will the Minister ensure that we focus on the poorest, many of whom retain the sense of stigma attached to claiming from the state?

Mr. Darling: I disagree with my hon. Friend about the reluctance to claim. The Department of Social Security wrote to 2.5 million people whom it thought might be entitled to the minimum income guarantee, and 750,000 responded. That is far more than ever before.

Mr. David Willetts: How many were successful?

Mr. Darling: Just under half were successful. People are prevented from getting the minimum income guarantee either because they have too high an income—we are addressing that by raising the minimum income guarantee to £100 from 2003—or because they have too much money in the bank; that is, they have more than the permissible amount.
The Conservatives argue that, because they are against the minimum income guarantee, they would give less to poorer pensioners. That is an absurd position, especially for the party that presided over a huge growth in the number of pensioners living in poverty. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to do more to ensure that those who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee get it. We shall do more, but the evidence suggests that it is not stigma or fear of claiming that get in the way, but the current rules, nearly all of which we have pledged to get rid of over the next couple of years. That will mean that more people will get the help to which they are entitled.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: In order to assure us that the ranks of those on means-tested benefit will not be added to by Equitable Life policyholders, will the Secretary of State tell us whether either he or his Department has been in touch with that company or with the Financial Services Authority? If so, what advice did he give or receive? If not, what were his reasons—as a champion of older people—for not doing so?

Mr. Darling: The answer to that question is that responsibility for the prudential supervision of insurance companies lies with the Financial Services Authority.

Housing Benefit (Students)

Mr. Simon Thomas: If he will make a statement on the payment of housing benefit to eligible students with loans. [141803]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): Most full-time students are supported by the student support system, which is designed to meet their needs. Full-time students in vulnerable groups and all part-time students are entitled to claim housing benefit.

Mr. Thomas: The Government's policy of taking into account student loans as full income for housing benefit purposes is affecting mature students in particular, including students at the universities at Lampeter and Aberystwyth. Why count loans as income at all? After all,


they are usually paid back with interest at the end of a certain period. Why count loans as income in full, especially if an individual student has not taken out a loan or has taken out only a very small loan?

Angela Eagle: It is our policy to count all eligible income, and that includes student loans. At the moment, only part-time or vulnerable students can apply for housing benefit. Extra protections are in place to ensure that we do all that we can to enable people in those categories to take advantage of the right to study. Changes will be introduced to the treatment of student loans in income-related benefits, which will mean that lone-parent students will be likely to receive more help during July and August than they have previously.
The Department for Education and Employment will also introduce the child care grant, based on the cost of child care, which will help students who look after dependent children. I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and we are doing our best to tailor the system to enable those who wish to take advantage of education to do so in a practical way.

Winter Fuel Allowance

Helen Jones: How many pensioners in Warrington, North are receiving the winter fuel allowance. [141804]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): Our latest information is that around 11 million payments have already been issued for this winter, 16,300 of which have been made to those entitled in Warrington, North.

Helen Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that pensioners in my constituency are very grateful for the ability to turn up their heating without worrying about the bills in winter? In the light of that, can he assure me that all eligible pensioners will receive their cheques before Christmas? Can he also tell the House what assessment he has made of the imp let on the health and well-being of pensioners if the Opposition were ever in a position to withdraw the winter fuel allowance?

Mr. Darling: Everyone who has received a winter fuel payment in previous years should now have received their winter fuel payment. People who need to claim will also get their money by Christmas if they claimed by the beginning of November. We are still looking at the claims of a small number of people who have claimed since that time, and they will be paid early in the new year.
As for the health of pensioners in the future, most Labour Members recognise the very real problem of fuel poverty, particularly among pensioners, that we inherited. When people judge the political parties, whenever the election comes, they will wonder at the Conservatives, who are making it clear that they will give less money to poor people and that there will be no Christmas bonus, no reward for saving, no free television licence and no winter fuel payment. That sounds like a remarkable manifesto—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I make a request to the Secretary of State not to talk about Conservative policy? It is his policy that I am interested in hearing.

Mr. John Bercow: Is the right hon. Gentleman genuinely satisfied that all backdated winter fuel payments to people in the Warrington, North constituency have now been received? In reflecting on his answer, is he conscious that on 11 April he said that all backdated payments would be made as soon as possible; that on 20 July, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), said that they would all be made by the end of September; and that on 13 November, the hon. Lady said that the target date for ensuring that those backdated payments would be made was the end of March 2001, although she could not be certain that that target would be met? In the light of that, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he will get his act together? Secondly, can he offer us some indication of which will arrive first: the backdated winter fuel payments that are due or Billy Bunter's postal order?

Mr. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman had his way, those payments would never arrive at all, because he wants to get rid of them. As I have just told my hon. Friend, all those who have received winter fuel payments in previous years should now have received them because they were sent out in good time for Christmas. The only people who needed to apply were men aged between 60 and 65, whose addresses the Department of Social Security does not necessarily have because there is no obligation on men of that age to tell the DSS where they live.
All those who made their claims before the beginning of November should now have received their payment. A small minority of people applied after that time; their claims have to be processed, and we want to make those payments as soon as possible. We are anxious to ensure that all those who are entitled to this year's winter fuel payment of £200 get it. The payment is having a big impact on pensioners—something upon which the hon. Gentleman might care to reflect.

Fuel Poverty

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What steps the Government are taking to reduce fuel poverty. [141805]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): We are developing a comprehensive strategy to tackle fuel poverty. The winter fuel payment makes an important contribution. For this winter only, we have increased the amount to £200—double the amount paid last winter.

Mr. Bennett: May I assure my hon. Friend that the pensioners in Denton and Reddish are delighted with the £200? However, will he address two particular problems? First, some pensioners are reluctant to spend that money on heating and still live in houses that are inadequately heated. Spending the money on heating will improve the quality of their life no end, so will he plead with them to do so? Secondly, is he aware that too many pensioners


still live in houses that are heating the neighbourhood, and that he needs to work very hard to promote the Government's home energy saving scheme?

Mr. Bayley: I thank my hon. Friend for those questions. Eliminating fuel poverty is important, and more needs to be done. The Government will soon publish their strategy on fuel poverty, which will address the issues raised by my hon. Friend. The reason why a one-off payment is made at the start of winter is precisely to encourage people to use it for the purpose of heating. It would be far less likely that the money would be spent on heating if the winter fuel allowance were abolished, or paid in weekly instalments.
The old home energy efficiency scheme provided grants of up to £315 per household; the new scheme, which we introduced in June, can make payments of up to £1,000 per household and £2,000 for households with people aged over 60. That is a substantial improvement. By 2004, the new HEES budget will be £600 million and the scheme will be helping 800,000 vulnerable households—more than half of which will be pensioner households.

Social Fund (Administration)

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What percentage of the social fund is spent on administration costs. [141806]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): In 1998–99, social fund payments and recoveries amounting to £1,114 million were made at an administrative cost of £215 million. That cost represents 19.3 per cent. of both expenditure and recoveries.

Mr. Pike: Although those figures show a massive improvement in the administrative costs of the social fund from those under the previous Conservative Government, does my hon. Friend agree that, as the Labour Government's priority is to help the poorest section of the community and as the social fund is aimed at that group, the fund and loans through it remain too expensive administratively? Is it not time that we introduced a better and fairer system to help the people who are most in need?

Angela Eagle: We keep the system under review. Clearly, we need to drive down administrative costs as much as possible, although any system that entails us making detailed inquiries into individual circumstances will, by its nature, cost more than a more automatic scheme, such as child benefit. The Conservatives have said that they would take £90 million from the social fund; that would make it increasingly harder to give money to the poorest and most vulnerable.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Minister confirm that there was a 9 per cent. rise in a single year—last year—in applications to the social fund? What are the implications of that for the Government's progress in tackling poverty?

Angela Eagle: The rise, I suspect, has something to do with the changes to the budgeting loan system, which we introduced last year and which enabled more people to apply. There has been a 9 per cent. increase in the

number of grants given; that is because extra people became eligible after the changes to the budgeting loan system.
That system and the social fund can only be the fund of last resort. We are trying to tackle child poverty and other forms of poverty at their source. That includes introducing programmes such as the working families tax credit and enabling tone parents to go out to work to support themselves and their children by setting up child care and by allowing them to have access to initiatives such as the new deal for lone parents—which the Conservatives would scrap. We believe in dealing with the causes of poverty as well as its symptoms.

Ann Clwyd: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the overall administration costs of the DSS may have increased because of its extra responsibilities of dealing with the miners compensation scheme? Is there a case either for scrapping that clawback altogether, or for increasing the number of administrators at the DSS to speed up the average of 28 days taken to deal with those claims?

Angela Eagle: I can reassure my hon. Friend that the miners compensation scheme does not feature at all in the administrative costs of the social fund. I know that my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry are doing all that they can to speed up payments and to ensure that the oldest and most ill people are the first to receive the payments that they deserve.

Minimum Income Guarantee

Mr. Paul Flynn: What is his most recent estimate of the take-up of the minimum income guarantee. [141808]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): The latest estimate is that nearly 2 million pensioners are claiming the minimum income guarantee. That will mean that the poorest pensioner households are at least £15 a week better off in real terms as a result of the measures that we have introduced since 1997.

Mr. Flynn: It is a wonderful achievement for the Government that both the minimum income guarantee and the pensioner credit will be increased by the top level of inflation—by the earnings rate—and that the increase in pensions next year will he the first for 25 years that has been higher than both measures of the inflation rate. However, should we not now consider combining all those measures into a simple scheme—a new national insurance fund, free-standing and run by independent managers paid by results? Such a scheme would give pensioners what they want, which is an assurance that their incomes will not be reduced by future inflation.

Mr. Darling: I assume that my hon. Friend's first remark was an acknowledgement of what the Government have done for pensioners, both through next April's increase in pensions and by ensuring that we do more to help the poorest pensioners.
However, I disagree with my hon. Friend's second point. The problem that we have to deal with is that the inequality between pensioner incomes now is as great as it


was nearly 40 years ago, and an across-the-board pension increase would not deal with that inequality. We wanted to do more for the poorest pensioners. That is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee, which will rise to £100 in 2003. Crucially, we also wanted to do more for the millions of pensioners—more than half the pensioners in this country—who have a little money in the bank and some modest savings, and who should be rewarded for their thrift, whereas under the present system, which we inherited, they are penalised for having saved.
I also disagree with my hon. Friend in that I believe that there should be a partnership between state provision and people's own funded provision. What my hon. Friend suggested sounded suspiciously like moving everybody into totally funded provision. That is not the right thing to do, particularly for lower earners as everybody knows, they should not be in funded provision, because it would not suit them.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: In answer to Question 2, the Secretary of State gave the House the welcome news that three quarters of a million people had responded to the minimum income guarantee campaign asking for further details. In the next sentence, he went on to say that half those people had made successful applications. I am sure that that is wrong. For the avoidance of doubt, will he tell us how many people made successful applications?
Secondly, the Department's own figures recently suggested that £2 billion to £4 billion in possible expenditure is left unclaimed. Those figures are almost the same as the sums talked about in connection with fraud within the Benefits Agency system. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that local offices can take initiatives on take-up campaigns themselves, in addition to the national strategic advertising campaign for the minimum income guarantee?

Mr. Darling: About 143,000 additional claims have been processed. I was referring to the fact that just under three quarters of a million people had responded to the campaign. My point was that the problem does not appear to be stigma, or a reluctance to claim, but the fact that, because of income levels, or because people can lose all entitlement to help unless they have £8,000 or less in the bank, too many people do not qualify. Those are not rich people; they are people who need assistance, and we are determined to ensure that they get it.
The hon. Gentleman made a further point about unclaimed benefits. Undoubtedly there are unclaimed benefits, but the fact that so many people responded to us suggests that, rather than there being a reluctance to claim, many people simply do not qualify because of the rules that we inherited. That is why we are scrapping the capital rules when the pension credit starts in two years' time, and why we have increased the minimum income guarantee to £92 next year, rising 10 £100 the year after. I want to ensure that all who need help get it. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the embryo of that policy was what the Liberals proposed at the general election.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: I am not entirely sure that I can agree with all that, because six weeks ago the Minister told me that 500,000 elderly people who were

entitled to the MIG did not apply for it. It is not that they applied and got knocked back; nine months after the start of the take-up campaign, 500,000 elderly people are still not applying. It seems to me that those people are likely to be very elderly and frail, with failing eyesight and hearing. If we mean what we say about reaching the poorest pensioners, might not the only way of doing that be to employ people to knock on doors, speak to those people and encourage them to take up their entitlement?

Mr. Darling: At the last Social Security questions, it was probably right that 500,000 had then responded. The figure is now nearly three quarters of a million, simply because more people have responded in the past five weeks. My hon. Friend makes a perfectly legitimate point—some pensioners who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee and other help have not yet applied for it, and we are constantly looking at what to do about that. I tell him and the others who complain about the minimum income guarantee that it is the most effective way to get far more money to some of the poorest people in this country. They are getting fives times more than they would have done if we had restored the earnings link. By all means let us consider what further steps need to be taken to reach some of those pensioners, but our proposal is the only way to ensure that we can get more help to those pensioners who live in poverty, which was never done when the Tories were in power. I am determined, and I am sure my hon. Friend is, to ensure that pensioner poverty is a thing of the past.

Mr. David Willetts: The Secretary of State is perhaps about to give the House some useful information—it is a bit like extracting teeth, but we can put together the answers that he has recently given. He says that 600,000 application forms have been returned and that 130,000 or 140,000 forms are being processed. He said earlier that half the applications were successful. So is he saying that there have been between 60,000 and 70,000 successful claims for the minimum income guarantee as a result of his take-up campaign, as against approximately 700,000 pensioners who are entitled to it but are not claiming it?

Mr. Darling: Let me explain the position so that even someone with two brains can understand it. Just under 750,000 people have responded to the latest take-up campaign. I make the point yet again that that implies that stigma, or the reluctance to claim, is not the problem in relation to the minimum income guarantee. In answer to a further question, I said that 143,000 additional new claims have been processed. A large number of people were told when they phoned that they would not qualify because they had too much money in the bank, or because their income was too high. That is why fewer claims are being processed, but more claims are still in the pipeline. Some 62,000 claims have been successful.
The hon. Gentleman may weep crocodile tears about the number of people who are successful, but he opposes the minimum income guarantee and would ensure that pensioners received even less money as a result. He did absolutely nothing about the growing levels of pensioner poverty when he was in office. If people were to vote for the Conservatives again, they would be faced with scrapping the minimum income guarantee, the winter fuel


payment, free television licences and the Christmas bonus. As a result, millions of pensioners would be worse off under his proposals.

Mr. Willetts: It took questions from three different parts of the House, but we have got there: we now know that there have been 62,000 successful claims for the minimum income guarantee as a result of the massive take-up campaign, although the Government know that more than 600,000 pensioners are entitled to it but are not claiming it. Thus we are talking about a success rate of less than 10 per cent. Does not that show that the Government's take-up campaign has been a conspicuous failure and that it would be a jolly sight better to put the money into a straightforward increase in the basic pension?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is not proposing to do that; he is against the minimum income guarantee and against giving more money to the poorest pensioners in this country. With respect, he is missing the point. The fact that 750,000 people responded to the campaign suggests to me that the real problem is not stigma, or a reluctance to claim, but the artificially low limits on the amount of money that people can save before being denied help—something that his Government did absolutely nothing about in the 18 years that they were in office. A further problem is that, until now, those pensioners who are the poorest in society have been getting too little, which is why we are increasing the minimum income guarantee. But make no bones about it, the Tories do not propose to give the poorest pensioners more money. More than 2 million pensioners do not even qualify for the full pension, so an across-the-board increase would do absolutely nothing to help them. The Tories presided over a record growth in the number of pensioners living in poverty, and if they got their chance, they would continue exactly the same policy again.

Means Tests (Pensioners)

Mr. Simon Hughes: How many more pensioners will be means-tested in the next financial year under measures announced in the pre-Budget statement. [141809]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We estimate that a further 500,000 pensioners will benefit from the significant increase in minimum income guarantee rates and capital limits from next year. The poorest pensioners will gain £12.45 a week as a result of the measures that we announced last November alone.

Mr. Hughes: If someone applies for asylum and does not succeed, the Government and others call him a bogus asylum seeker, but someone who applies for the minimum income guarantee and does not succeed—most applicants appear not to—is simply called someone who did not succeed. I hope that the Government will apply some consistency in their language.
I have a simple question. What increase in the basic pension would the Government have to make to ensure that the majority of applicants for the minimum income guarantee received it?

Mr. Darling: They would not get it. The hon. Gentleman is attempting to grapple with a problem. Many people have expressed an interest in the minimum income guarantee, but he and others have argued that people are reluctant to claim it because of the stigma that is attached to claiming. Those arguments do not stand up. We have identified the fact that people are unsuccessful either because they have too much money in the bank—we are getting rid of the capital limits to remove that artificial prohibition on receiving help—or because they have too much income, and we are dealing with that by raising the minimum income guarantee to £92 next year and up to £100 the year after that.
On the hon. Gentleman's specific question, when we increase the capital limits next year as a stepping stone to getting rid of them, nearly 500,000 people will gain as a result.
I remind the hon. Gentleman and other Liberal Democrats that their policy at the previous election was not based on a huge across-the-board pensions increase. They said:
We will create an additional top-up pension for pensioners with incomes below the income support level. This will be indexed to earnings and tapered as outside income increases.
In other words, they proposed the embryo of what we are enacting. As a result of what we have done, 2 million pensioners are £15 a week better off.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: It has been claimed that many elderly people are simply too proud to claim the minimum income guarantee. I have yet to find any such person in my constituency. I find that, when people know about the guarantee, they want to claim the money. Some people still do not know about it, so will my right hon. Friend think of ways in which we could further increase awareness? For example, we could use local media outlets, local campaigns and local officials who could visit sheltered accommodation and places where many elderly people live to promote awareness.
Some claims have not succeeded because of the savings limit, so will my right hon. Friend write directly to all the people who have been affected and advise them of the doubling of the limits and of their eventual disappearance and replacement with the pensioner credit?

Mr. Darling: We will get in touch with the people who have just missed out. It is important that they realise that they may be eligible for help after next April.
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is not stigma or a reluctance to claim that is the problem. The problem is that artificially low limits have been imposed on the amount that pensioners can save. We want to make sure that those artificial limits are removed, which is why we are getting rid of the capital limits.
We also want to make sure that we can do far more than an across-the-board increase could ever do for the poorest pensioners, and that leads me on to another difference between us and the Conservatives. At present, if people do what successive Governments have told them to do and save for their retirement, they will lose out and be penalised. That is why the pension credit will ensure that, when people save for their retirement, they will receive a cash top-up to reward them for their thrift. That is a strategy to encourage more people to save for their retirement and will remove the problem that we inherited.


In this, the fourth largest economy in the world, we were left by the Tories with 2 million pensioners who did not have enough to live on. That state of affairs has no place in a decent society.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Before the Government were elected, their spokesmen made moving speeches about abolishing means-testing for pensioners, but now that they are in office, 55 per cent. of all pensioners will be on means-tested benefits within three years. Has there been a change of policy or has something gone wrong?

Mr. Darling: More pensioners are getting more money under Labour. I hope the hon. Gentleman has got that. I hope that that situation continues because I would not want to leave pensioner poverty in the same state as the Conservative party left it. Pensioner poverty has no place in a decent society and we are going to make absolutely sure that it does not happen. There will be more pensioners with more money under Labour.

Winter Fuel Payments

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: How many pensioners in Chorley will benefit from the winter fuel payment. [141810]

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Some 17,600 winter fuel payments have been made to people in Chorley who are entitled to them.

Mr. Hoyle: I welcome that. The payment is warmly welcomed in Chorley and its residents look forward to it being paid in years to come. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that that will be the case for the lifetime of this Government and that, unlike the Conservatives, we are committed to providing that payment?

Mr. Rooker: Yes, following the exchanges on Question 4, it is clear that we are committed to that payment. It is extremely popular and it gets money to people over the age of 60. I do not want to fall out with you, Mr. Speaker, but I hope that that is taken on board by my hon. Friend's Tory opponent at the general election.

Fraud

Dr. Lynne Jones: What his estimate is of the annual cost of fraud in the social security system. [141811]

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Social security fraud is estimated to cost the country at least £2 billion a year. We recently published figures that show a significant fall in fraudulent claims for jobseeker's allowance and income support. As a result, we are on target to reduce fraud by 10 per cent. by 2002 and to halve it by 2006.

Dr. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend clarify whether those figures include the cost of measures that have been introduced to detect fraud? Does he agree that prevention is better than cure and that designing out fraud is as important as rooting out fraud? Will he report on progress

in simplifying the social security system so that more people can understand it and in reducing dependency on means-tested benefits and credits?

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend asks several questions. The answer to the first is no. The figure that I gave of £2 billion of fraud is established as a loss. Other figures have been bandied about, but they are based on strong or mild suspicion. We have a programme protection system. It costs several hundred million pounds a year to run and it protects a budget of £100 billion. However, it is necessary.
We have made considerable savings in the cost of fraud in this Parliament. We have saved more than £1 billion by implementing checks on new income support claimants, which is an improvement on the situation that prevailed before we took office. We have introduced several measures, which I could read to the House, and new legislation was forecast in the Queen's Speech. It is important to ensure that the correct benefit is paid to the correct person at the start of the claim and to keep that right. That is the one way to prevent fraud from entering the system.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The Minister might recall that in a previous Question Time I referred to an article in The Economist, which suggested that the amount of disability fraud is now so large and prevalent that the Government have given up trying to calculate it. The Minister was unable to estimate the level of disability fraud, but as time has now passed will he share such information with the House?

Mr. Rooker: No, not without being given notice of such a specific aspect of fraud. It is true—there is no question about it—that it is at a high level. We shall introduce legislation to fill gaps in our armoury against fraud, which I hope all hon. Members will support.
We have better-trained fraud investigators than ever before. The Department has recently taken on the former deputy director of MI5 and the former head of investigations at Customs and Excise. We are bringing into the Department people with better experience of rooting out fraud within the system. There is too much fraud, and we must do everything possible to cut it, whether it occurs in claims for disability benefits or other benefits.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Would the Minister care to consider for a moment that there is another form of fraud that his Department urgently needs to address? I refer to cases in which the administration and delivery of housing benefit is contracted out to various companies, which blatantly fail to perform that task. That results in thousands of people mistakenly being assigned rent arrears and, if they are local authority or housing association tenants, being threatened with the loss of their home, or, in the case of many private tenants, losing their home.
Is the Department prepared to look seriously at the appalling record of many of those companies—particularly IT Net, which administers the service in Islington and Hackney—with a view to terminating those


contracts, ensuring that the job is done efficiently in-house and removing for many people the threat that they will lose their home?

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend raises important issues. In the administration of housing benefit, there are incompetent local authorities, just as there are incompetent private companies. The contracts to which my hon. Friend refers are awarded by the local authority, and it is not within my Department's competence to terminate them. The benefit fraud inspectorate scrutinises housing benefit authorities and publishes reports. In some cases there is collusion between tenants and landlords, and we must take steps to root that out as well.
It is outrageous that someone's home should be put at risk because of the straightforward incompetence of the private company to which benefit administration has been contracted out or the public sector that has not supervised the contractor sufficiently.

Mr. Eric Pickles: Does the right hon. Gentleman regret the answer on benefit fraud that he gave me on 13 November at column 640, when he said that the guidelines on the protection of customer information were identical to those that had previously been issued? It is clear that the discretion given to staff under the new guidelines is much greater than before and that there are other material differences.
Does the Minister also regret the written answer that he gave on 30 November, promising to deposit the old guidelines in the Library so that Members could compare them with the new ones? A few minutes before Question Time began, those guidelines had still not been placed in the Library.
Unarguably, paragraph 519 of the guidelines makes it clear that the Department will withhold from the police the identity of burglars, muggers and thieves. It is also clear from paragraph 511 that assaults on the Department's staff warrant disclosure, but assaults on members of the public do not. Is the Minister aware that, despite the guidance given in paragraph 517, the police are still struggling to get co-operation on matters as serious as murder? Is it any surprise that police morale is at an all-time low? Will the right hon. Gentleman stop defending the indefensible and change the guidelines?

Mr. Rooker: May I, first, apologise to the hon. Gentleman about the placing of the guidelines in the Library? Frankly, there has been a complete and utter breakdown. I answered a question and gave specific instructions. I rewrote the answer to the effect that, for comparison, I would put the previous guidelines in the Library until the last day of this year. They should be there, and I regret that they are not. I hope that they will be there by the end of Question Time. The delay is unforgivable and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
In a letter to the hon. Gentleman or in one of my answers I said that there were on-going discussions between my Department and the Home Office. They went on for a considerable time, and they have been concluded to my satisfaction and that of the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke). A new concordat will be written and agreed by my Department, the Home Office and the police, so that there will be no complaints about the police not being

able to get the information that they need from DSS officers in the pursuance of crime. There will be a change, as I forecast in one of my answers to the hon. Gentleman.

Prisoners of War (Far East)

Jane Griffiths: How many former far east prisoners of war have applied to the War Pensions Agency for payment. [141813]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I checked the numbers this morning and can confirm that, as of today's date, 12,200 forms have been issued and 11,300 completed claims received.

Jane Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which will be welcome to those of my constituents who are eligible to apply. Does he agree that the speedy issuing of forms and the acceleration of claims will be good news for my constituent, John Darby, who was captured in 1942 and served on the infamous railway of death? Now in his 80s, he is not in the best of health and he hopes to receive his compensation before his health worsens further.

Mr. Bayley: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a close interest in the matter and that she secured a debate in the House on compensation for far east prisoners of war two years ago. I can guarantee that the Government will move as quickly as they can to make the payments. We hope to be able to start making payments—indeed, to make the majority of them—in February next year.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The Minister will recall that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence was praised—rightly so—for the apparently comprehensive nature of the original settlement. Is he aware that it is now being said that those Gurkhas who became far east prisoners of war will, uniquely, be excluded from the scheme? I appreciate that the matter is not the direct responsibility of the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, although it does arise from today's question, but if he cannot give me an assurance today, will he ensure that I am written to in the near future? Given the service that they have rendered this country, it would be i4uite unthinkable to leave Gurkhas out of the arrangement.

Mr. Bayley: The policy is a matter for my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Ministry of Defence, who will read the hon. Gentleman's comments. I have enormous respect for the Gurkhas—indeed, last year, for the first time, Gurkhas served in the regiment based in my constituency, 2 Signals Regiment. However, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, the position during the second world war was different, in that there were no Gurkha regiments in the British Army; s such regiments were all members of the Indian army. On India becoming independent in 1948, responsibility for all matters relating to Indian army regiments passed to the Indian Government and subsequently the Indian and Pakistani Governments.

Mr. Nicholls: There is a moral responsibility.

Mr. Bayley: The reason the Canadian Government have a similar scheme to ours is that they take responsibility for the Canadian service men who were imprisoned in the far east during the war. Responsibility for each contingent of the allied forces lies with the Government under whom those forces served.

Pension Credit

Mr. David Borrow: What representations he has received in respect of the proposed pension credit. [141817]

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): To date, we have received slightly more than 150 responses to the pension credit consultation exercise, which runs until 28 February next year.

Mr. Borrow: Thousands of pensioners in my constituency who receive only modest occupational pensions have repeatedly told me that they feel that, having made provision for their old age, they receive no practical benefit for having done so and that, in many ways, they wish that they had not made that provision. The announcement of the pension credit is a major step toward satisfying such concerns. However, will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in the scheme's introduction, consideration is given to ensuring that any application form is as simple and as straightforward as possible, and that his Department will examine imaginative ways of ensuring that all those who are eligible to apply for the pension credit do so?

Mr. Rooker: The application form for pension credit will be unlike any other form ever issued by my Department. It will be short, simple, easily understood and an absolute joy to fill in for the millions of pensioners who will gain from the pension credit, for whom the Conservatives, who oppose the credit, do not have the time of day.

Mr. Paul Burstow: The Minister might not be a Member of Parliament when the form becomes available, but can he answer the following question? As the current take-up campaign for the minimum income guarantee is being conducted on such a scale and is eliciting so many responses, why did his Department not include in that exercise questions that could have enabled it to identify those who would benefit from the pension credit?

Mr. Rooker: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the pension credit had not been introduced when we started the MIG take-up campaign, and it took several months to plan it. We have information from those who made unsuccessful MIG claims. As my right hon. Friend said, both the income and capital figures are changing next April. It should be easy to access the information provided by unsuccessful claimants. We have tried to make the process as simple as possible. Introducing other information—we could not do so, because the scheme was not announced—would have put people off. It would have added to the complications of the form that they had to complete.

Carers

Ms Linda Perham: Which groups of elderly carers will gain from his recently announced changes in benefits for carers. [141818]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): We intend to remove the upper age limit for claims to invalid care allowance. Subject to parliamentary approval, this measure will allow carers aged 65 and older who meet the normal entitlement conditions to be awarded ICA. Carers whose rate of basic state pension is less than the rate of ICA will benefit, as will carers receiving the pensioner minimum income guarantee, who will receive the carer premium.

Ms Perham: I thank the Minister for that answer. Is he aware that those measures are widely welcomed in my constituency, especially those for older carers? On the day that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the uprating of benefits in November, I was addressing the annual meeting of Redbridge Carers Association. It particularly welcomed the extension of ICA for over 65-year-olds. How many people will benefit from this measure and from the eight-week run-on for the bereavement allowance for over 65s?

Mr. Bayley: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done, in both her constituency and the House, on behalf of carers. Our announcement to extend eligibility to apply for ICA to people over 65 has been warmly welcomed. For instance, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation wrote:
We are particularly pleased that older carers will now have their work recognised by the extension of "carers allowance" to people over 65.
We believe that 40,000 pensioners will gain as a result of the changes that we intend to make. Some 15,000 will gain eligibility to ICA, and some 25,000 will gain entitlement to the carer premium.

Disability Benefit

Mr. Andrew George: What assessment he has made of the effect of disability benefit withdrawal from people seeking jobs. [141819]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): It is important not to penalise anyone who is seeking work. Disability living allowance is based on a person's care and mobility needs, and is paid irrespective of whether they are working, not working or seeking work.

Mr. George: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that many disabled people face, in effect, a precipice of benefit withdrawal as they enter work and come off benefit? That applies not only to the independent living fund but to many other forms of benefit. What action will the Minister and the Department


take to ensure that disabled people who are rightly seeking to enter the job market—many thousands of them are—can do so with confidence of future security?

Mr. Bayley: We are putting in train a number of changes to the benefit system to remove disincentives to work for those people who are disabled, who want to work and who are able to secure a job. For instance, we extended the linking rule in incapacity benefit from eight weeks, when we took office, to 52 weeks. For those who benefit from the disabled person's tax credit, we stretched the linking rule further from eight weeks to two years. We have made changes to the rules of the independent living fund, so that ILF customers who are able to work can keep a greater proportion of their income.
Through the new deal for disabled people, we continue to make it possible for more disabled people who want to work to do so. According to the Government's labour force survey, more than 1 million disabled people are on incapacity benefits and they say that they would like to work. Our policies—the changes to the benefit system and the new deal—are making it possible for more disabled people to achieve their ambition to get a job.

Mr. Tim Boswell: As the Minister mentioned disincentives, does he accept that they are a factor in the considerations of disabled people who want to return to the labour force? Will he continue to press the matter, with particular reference to the independent living fund? The package that he announced, on its own and unsupported, is by no means adequate to get people back to work at a reasonable level of income, and the perverse disincentive has not been eliminated. What other action does he plan to reduce the elements of disincentive that remain in a system in which the Government pile on further means tests and, by implication, further disincentives to honest employment, when all that those people want is honest employment?

Mr. Bayley: I know that the hon. Gentleman means well, but the very tight means test on the independent living fund was introduced by his party. We relaxed it to enable those ILF customers who work to keep a larger proportion of their earnings. We made that change to provide the sort of incentive to work that the hon. Gentleman suggests ought to be provided. I agree that it ought to be provided. It is just a shame that it was not provided by his party when it was in government.

Point of Order

Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your further guidance on the leaking of the contents of White Pipers by Government Departments to the press, in advance of statements being made to the House. You will recall that I raised the matter twice on points of order, on 28 November and 7 December. On the latter occasion, you assured me that you
would disapprove of giving someone sight of a White Paper or of any discussion of its content—[Official Report, 7 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 134.]
before a statement was made to the House.
I apologise for not raising this point of order last week, as I was abroad with the Select Committee on Defence.
Your assurance to me was given on 7 December. On Sunday 10 December there were detailed reports in both The Sunday Times and The Sunday Telegraph of the contents of the communications White Paper, about which a statement was not made to the House until Tuesday 12 December. I shall be grateful if you and members of your staff could investigate how, so soon after your previous guidance on the matter, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport flouted it.

Mr. Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look into the matter.

ESTIMATES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee),
That this House agrees with the Report [13th December] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Vehicles (Crime) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
As the House knows, vehicle crime is a serious problem, and one of the crimes that most concerns the public. Nearly 400,000 cars are stolen each year and 120,000 of those are never recovered. Vehicle crime accounts for nearly a fifth of all recorded crime and costs, at a conservative estimate, about £3 billion a year. It causes great distress and inconvenience to victims, as all of us know who have suffered from vehicle crime—in my case, before 1997, although I accept that it has gone on since 1997—[Laughter.] Thank you. Vehicle crime also ties up the resources of the criminal justice system.
Two years ago my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set a national target of reducing vehicle crime by 30 per cent. by 2004. As the Minister with responsibility for delivering the target, I thought that that was, in the current parlance, challenging, but I accepted it none the less. There is a good possibility that we will reach that target. The Bill forms an integral part of our strategy for reducing vehicle crime.
Although it is some time since I suffered from vehicle crime—there were special reasons for that—it is still a serious problem. None the less, vehicle crime has already fallen by 17 per cent. according to recorded crime figures. In a different context, I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends that, after about two months of denying its veracity, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition prayed in aid the British crime survey, which is the most thorough and authoritative survey of the total levels of recorded and unrecorded crime. The survey shows a similar trend for vehicle crime, and shows that it fell by 15.1 per cent. in the period—

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: Of course, in one second.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: Just let me finish the sentence. That period covered the calendar year 1997 and the calendar year 1999. The reduction in vehicle crime is the result of effective targeting by the police, working in partnership with manufacturers and the community. However, we have to do more. I shall give way, first to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and then to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).

Mr. Blunt: The Home Secretary referred to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Will he take the opportunity to make it clear that he does not believe that


my right hon. Friend is a racist or was guilty of racism? If people have taken the Home Secretary's remarks in that way and believe that, will he apologise for their effect?

Mr. Straw: The answer is no. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman's question is in order, as we are discussing the Vehicles (Crime) Bill. However, if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to say parenthetically in the House, as I have done outside, that I believe that the Leader of the Opposition played the race card in his speech, I am happy to do so. In case the hon. Gentleman has not caught up with the news, I note that the apologies on the record have been forthcoming from the shadow Home Secretary, who said that she was extremely sorry if the Taylor family was distressed about the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. That is my understanding of what has been said.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: Yes, of course.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Is his position that, any time that we decide to raise the issue of stop and search or the aftermath of the Macpherson report, that is playing the race card? Will he note that I did not apologise for comments made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? The only thing for which I expressed any regret at all was any distress that might have been felt. However, I did not believe that that was caused by my right hon. Friend's remarks, but rather by the press coverage and the interpretation of those remarks by the Home Secretary.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now that the right hon. Lady has finished, we will get on to the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Straw: I shall return to the Bill. The hon. Member for Buckingham wished to ask a question.

Mr. Bercow: Given the Home Secretary's enthusiasm for the British crime survey, will he confirm that he accepts its finding that vehicle crime is approximately twice the level of that which is recorded in the official statistics?

Mr. Straw: Yes, I will. The British crime survey tells us what we already knew—that the number of recorded vehicle thefts is pretty near 100 per cent. of the figure shown by the survey. When people's vehicles are stolen, most of them report that for insurance purposes. However, the recording of thefts from vehicles is much lower than that for vehicle theft, not least because the items stolen are sometimes below the excess on the insurance. Speaking personally, during the ancien regime, my stereo was stolen twice when my vehicle was parked at Preston station. On both occasions, I did not report the theft, because it was not really worth it. The vehicle was then stolen from outside my house in Blackburn.

Miss Widdecombe: Why did the right hon. Gentleman not use a crook lock?

Mr. Straw: I did use a crook lock but, unfortunately, a crook lock has not yet been designed that can anchor

the stereo to a vehicle. That may, however, be dealt with in the next Conservative manifesto, which might tell us that the Conservatives have solved that geometric problem.
I was about to point out—this comment is both in order and timely—that when my vehicle was stolen, I reported its theft not only to the police, but to the world's most important newspaper, the Lancashire Evening Telegraph. I offered as a reward two tickets for the next game to be played at Ewood Park by Blackburn Rovers. I am pleased to say that the temptation of the tickets was such that, within half an hour of the newspaper's appearance on the streets, someone had telephoned the local criminal investigation department to tell it who had stolen the vehicle. Someone else who happened to spot the vehicle also phoned the local CID to tell it where it was. As a result, I got my vehicle back and the offenders were arrested, charged and subsequently convicted.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can tell the House whether the Bill extends to dodging bandwagons, but will he comment on whether it extends to abandoned vehicles? Such vehicles are currently dealt with by the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978. Does the Bill have scope to criminalise the abandonment of vehicles? Kent county council has given me statistics showing that 1,472 vehicles were abandoned between 1997 and 1998. It is estimated that that figure will increase to 11,600, which will cost the council and the council tax payer in Kent some £650,000. The increase is set to continue, as the price of scrap and of cars is falling. Is there scope in the Bill to deal with the problem?

Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend knows, the Bill does not cover abandoned vehicles, although it applies where they are subsequently put into the salvage system.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about flat-backed lorries?

Mr. Straw: I dare may that bandwagons and flat-backed lorries are also covered.
We are open to arguments on whether the Bill should include other arrangements for abandoned vehicles and on whether the problem with abandoned vehicles is an inadequacy in criminal law or in its enforcement.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Did the right hon. Gentleman plead guilty to contributory negligence for failing to fit a crook lock when he lost his vehicle? Furthermore, does he accept that the Bill does not go far enough on the investigation and seeking out by the police of stolen vehicles? Will he consider contributing proper resources to that investigation, which is more important than the issue of an incident number for insurance purposes?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Lady's first point gives me the opportunity to return to the traumatic moment when I lost my vehicle. I thank her for that opportunity, as it was thanks to the great affection in which Blackburn Rovers is held that I got the vehicle back—a fact that enables me to put on record in Parliament my affection and support for the team and my congratulations to it on its magnificent victory against Burnley yesterday.


[Interruption.] There is no point in Opposition Front Benchers chuntering. There have been few more important occasions in Blackburn and Burnley than yesterday's victory.
The hon. Lady's second and more serious point related to investigation. The police are doing a great deal of work on investigating the criminal rings that are often responsible for vehicle theft and are trying not to treat each such theft as a single crime committed by an individual crook without any other criminal record. That is why we are investing a lot of resources in intelligence analysis. I accept that a good deal more can be done, but the decrease of recorded and unrecorded vehicle crime, including thefts of and from vehicle is a testament to the partnership between manufacturers and the community that I mentioned earlier.

Fiona Mactaggart: rose—

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Straw: If I may, I shall make progress, but I shall take more interventions later.
We believe that the Bill will make a significant impact in achieving our target. In drawing up the Bill, we were advised by the vehicle crime reduction action team, which included representatives from even sector of the vehicle industry as well as the police, motorists and insurers. I helped to launch its report at about this time last year in Leicester.
A number of problems that are not covered by existing legislation were identified by the action team. There is no control over motor salvage dealers, who may receive stolen vehicles, nor, astonishingly, has there been any control over the supply of number plates to unscrupulous motorists. Indeed, plenty of motorists who get a number plate, as I did not long ago for a trailer, are surprised that they can walk into the premises of any supplier of plates and tell the supplier what numbers they want. A plate can be supplied without any record being held.

Mr. David Chidgey: rose—

Mr. Michael Fabricant: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
Written off cars may be repaired I and returned to the road without any check being made on their identity. As we know, some are stolen vehicles in disguise.

Mr. Chidgey: On registration plates, is the Home Secretary aware that some 7 million plates are produced every year, and that 2 million go on new cars and 2 million on trade-ins? Where do the others go?

Mr. Straw: Well, as I also know, occasionally—[Interruption.] No. A lot of plates will replace those of existing vehicles—for example, when someone has backed into another vehicle or been backed into.

Mr. Fabricant: What estimate has the Home Secretary made of the number of extra police officers who will be required to enforce the new legislation? Has he had a

chance to read this week's edition of The House Magazine, which carries an article by the chairman of the Police Federation entitled "Policing in Crisis"? He says:
There's a huge suspicion and a powerful sense of unease in the police service …
There is a drive to reduce costs whatever the consequences.
Morale is the worst I have ever seen it.
Has the Home Secretary read that article? How can the legislation be enforced with police numbers lower than those recorded in 1997?

Mr. Straw: As it happens, I have not read the Christmas edition of The House Magazine, but look forward to doing so. I am familiar, however, with the article to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I do not accept that the police service is in crisis. I happen to note that the chairman of the Police Federation, for whom I have a lot of regard, tends to make such remarks about every six months and has been doing so for the past 10 years—they are just a hardy annual. On other occasions, he has claimed that the single most damaging policy—pursued not only by this Government, but by the previous one—was the abolition of the housing allowance in 1994 in the wake of the Sheehy report. A direct consequence of that was that it became more difficult to recruit additional police officers, which is why, perhaps, the reduction in the Metropolitan police service under the previous Administration was significantly greater than that recorded since we have been in office. Those numbers are, at last, turning round.
We want costs to be reduced in the police service, as we do in every other public authority, and that is happening. We are now all agreed that the British crime survey is the best measure of crime and I am therefore delighted to note that, not least as a result of the good work of the police service, overall crime has gone down under this Administration by 10 per cent.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: No, no. The rates of vehicle crime, domestic burglary and crimes of violence are also down.

Fiona Mactaggart: I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). There are matters that the Bill does not necessarily cover that my constituents would want it to include, such as the frustrating issue of dumped vehicles. I have the dishonour to represent the car crime capital of Britain—there are more thefts from motor vehicles in Slough than in any other constituency. Obviously, that has nothing to do with how the local force polices, and although vehicle crime in my constituency has increased over the past year, it has reduced by a third in Milton Keynes, which is in the same police force area. Will the Home Secretary consider extending the scope of the Bill to include measures to reduce theft from motor vehicles and to deal with the problem of dumped cars?

Mr. Straw: I hope that I have already given an answer about the problem of dumped cars. It is already a serious criminal offence to abandon a vehicle. However, we have undertaken to re-examine the offence, and we shall do so.
Manufacturers themselves have undertaken a great deal of work to ensure that thefts from vehicles are less likely. The figures we have published show both an inverse relationship between the value of a vehicle and the likelihood of its being stolen or broken into, and a direct relationship between a vehicle's age and the propensity for crimes against it. Although more modern vehicles are much more valuable, they are also much less likely to be broken into because breaking into them is more difficult.

Mr. Heald: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: No; I want to say more about this.

Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the frenzy of the debate, the Home Secretary—who is normally assiduous in answering questions—may have forgotten about one of my questions. I asked how many extra police officers would be required to enforce the legislation.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. The Home Secretary is responsible for replying to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Straw: I was about to reply. The answer is none, because no more officers are needed.
We have got vehicle crime down, and we aim to get it down further. The idea that every change in the law that is designed to drive crime down will lead to an increase in demands on the police is utter nonsense. Indeed, because we have driven crime down, there are fewer demands on the police in respect of crime, not more—although I fully recognise that that has been compensated for by additional calls in respect of disorder and other matters.
There was a long period during which the Conservative Government understood that, intellectually and financially. It is no good Conservative Members going on about police numbers now, insinuating that they would increase those numbers, because the one thing that the shadow Chancellor has absolutely refused to do is even promise to match our spending on the police, still less increase it.

Miss Widdecombe: rose—

Mr. Straw: We are going to hear a promise, are we?

Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman just tell the House this? Three years ago, we were funding 3,000 more police officers on a lower budget. What on earth has the right hon. Gentleman done with the money, given that he cannot afford them now?

Mr. Straw: What happened was this. It explains why, in January 1997, the right hon. Lady told the House that the budget she was presenting for 1997–98 would provide for 5,000 more officers, when in fact it provided for fewer officers. The budgets that were set did not properly take account of cost pressures on the police service. It is not a question of any kind of magic. In particular, those budgets did not take account of the increased pressures of pension payments.
I should add that, under a Bill for which the right hon. Lady's party was responsible, the police service was relieved of requirements to follow any direction from the Home Secretary involving overall police numbers, which then became a matte for individual chief constables. Some chief constables decided to use the limited resources available to them to maintain police numbers, but many decided to spend their resources for other purposes, such as civilianization—those numbers have remained stable—and information technology.

Miss Widdecombe: But the Government have reduced the number of civilians as well.

Mr. Straw: No; the number of civilians has increased marginally since 1997.
The right hon. Lady may be interested to learn that I have had various analyses carried out to find out whether there is any correlation between forces whose total budgets have been increased or reduced, forces whose total officer and civilian numbers have been increased or reduced, and forces that have experienced an increase or a decrease in crime. The answer is that there is no correlation between those three variables, which is very interesting. The right hon. Lady must understand. She asks what I have done with the money. I have done absolutely nothing with it because it is spent not by me, but by the police authorities.

Mr. Blunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No.
If the right hon. Lady bothered to ask the police authorities, they would tell her that the money had been spent. If she wants to increase police numbers even further than we are proposing, she will have to increase the money even further. There is not a voter in the country who does not understand that.

Mr. Heald: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: No. I am sorry, but I wish to make some progress.
In addition to the other problems that I have specified, the police have no general right of access to the motor insurers' database, which would allow them to identify uninsured drivers as they drive past. The Bill will tackle those problems.
The Bill will make vehicle crime less attractive by reducing opportunities for professional car thieves to profit. The estimate is that it could prevent up to 39,000 car thefts and 6,000 fraudulent insurance theft claims each year.

Mr. Heald: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to make some progress first.
The Bill will extend the time limit for prosecuting car thieves or those who take a car without the consent of the owner. It will make it easier for the police to detect uninsured driving. It will enable magistrates courts'


receipts from fixed penalties for speeding and for jumping red lights to be directly applied to the funding of more safety cameras.

Mr. Heald: Does the Home Secretary agree with the Motor Vehicle Dismantlers Association of Great Britain, which deals with salvage, which has said that, to meet his target of preventing 39,000 thefts, there must be effective enforcement of the laws? If so, how will he do that with no extra police officers? If he is to achieve that with the same police officers, what jobs will they not be able to do?

Mr. Straw: What the hon. Gentleman has to grasp is that, to enforce such a measure, additional police officers are not necessarily required. When they were in government, we heard Conservative Members talk time and again about the need to make all public services more effective. I do not exclude the police service from that, even though there is a tiny minority of police officers who do not like the fact that we are trying to make the system more effective.
We are trying to deal, for example, with unnecessary sickness absence. We have already cut the paperwork, but there are a few police officers who do not mind paperwork because it keeps them out of action on the street—not very many, but a few. That needs to be borne in mind, too.
The police service is no different from other organisations. The quality of what that service delivers depends on the quality of the individuals employed by it, which can vary, and the quality of the management and the leadership.

Mr. Blunt: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: No.
We know clearly that even within London the level of crime recorded—robbery, burglary, vehicle theft and many other offences—in different boroughs varies a lot. It is dependent not on the number of officers in those areas, but on the quality of the leadership and of the officers on the streets. It is one of the matters about which I have asked the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to raise performance—he has fully embraced that. We need to identify the boroughs that are not performing well and to raise their performance to the level of the best. It is in that way, as well as through our huge additional investment in the police service, that we will be able to make this country safer, after the appalling 18 years when crime doubled.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to look at what we do in Plymouth to cut down on car crime and, in particular, the joint approach that is taken through environmental health, taxation and the police? The law is difficult to enforce at the moment. The Bill should make things much easier. The detection of vehicle crime will take up not only less police time, but that of other departments' staff.

Mr. Straw: I am indeed aware of what is going on in Plymouth because I was told about it by Sir John Evans, who was the chief constable. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. There are many examples—Plymouth is one, Milton Keynes is another—where police

using similar resources per head are able to do significant things. There are lessons there for other boroughs, whether they are represented by Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat Members, that are not doing as well. They can make progress with more imagination. Often, greater imagination by the police service and better partnerships with local authorities and others can ensure that fewer resources are used more effectively.

Mr. Blunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No; I shall take the House through the Bill.
Part I introduces regulation of motor salvage dealers. Most salvage dealers already operate to high standards and fully within the law; however, as all hon. Members know, some do not. Almost one third of stolen cars are never recovered, and the motor salvage industry offers opportunities for the identities of stolen cars to be disguised and for stolen cars to be broken up and resold as parts.
There is also a link between salvage dealers and insurance fraud. Some cars that are reported stolen are sold to motor salvage dealers and broken up for their parts, or they are given the identity of written-off cars and resold. Therefore, clauses 1 to 6 establish a registration system, and clauses 7 to 11 will allow us to ensure that registered dealers keep appropriate records, including a note of the destruction of vehicles.
Part II regulates the supply and issue of number plates. I cannot believe that there will be any argument at all in the House about that scheme, except perhaps about whether it goes far enough.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Straw: No; I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
As all hon. Members know, the effects of the number plate problem go beyond vehicle crime. Burglars may use false number plates to cover their traces when making a getaway, and terrorists also may use them. Many other people may use false plates simply to avoid penalties from safety cameras.
Clauses 16 to 22 require number plate suppliers to register with the Secretary of State—which, in this case, in practice, means with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Number plate suppliers will have to allow police to enter and inspect their premises without a warrant. It will also be an offence for a wholesaler to supply an unregistered supplier and to sell fake plates. The prospect that details of the transaction will be recorded should deter prospective purchasers of number plates who require them for criminal purposes. Record keeping will provide police with the means of tracing the source of plates used in criminal activities.
There will be a power in clause 33 to make regulations prescribing additional information to be held on number plates and the way in which it should be contained or displayed. Therefore, it will not be easy to forge plates. The information on the number plate will link it to the vehicle for which it is intended, making it difficult to swap vehicle identities.

Mr. Simon Thomas: I offer a general welcome to the provision that the Home Secretary of State


has just outlined, but may I ask him to address himself to a problem that has arisen in Wales—the display of the Welsh flag on number plates? I have received a note from the Library saying that, currently, such display is illegal. I should also tell the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) that some of the number plates in Wales have been created simply to show off the Welsh flag.
Will the Home Secretary clarify whether such display is illegal? Will it remain illegal to display a Welsh flag or an English flag? Will it be necessary to display an EU flag? Does clause 33 give the Home Secretary the power to vary the restriction, to make it legal to display the Welsh flag? Will he consider doing that?

Mr. Straw: It says in my brief—I knew it anyway because I am a swot—that use of the Euro symbol will be permitted as a means of aiding the circulation of vehicles in Europe, and also of increasing the blood pressure of Conservative Members of Parliament. No other emblems will be permitted as they could cause confusion. The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Executive were consulted on that and—the brief says—raised no objection.
I am happy for the issue to be raised in Committee. There are other places on the back of vehicles where those who are proud of their national heritage can display a sticker identifying their nationality, and long may that continue. In the legislation, we are addressing only the issue of identification on the vehicle plate.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Straw: I thought that that might wind up the right hon. Gentleman. I shall give way.

Mr. Forth: Will the Secretary of State clarify whether it will be permitted, if not mandatory, to show the European Union symbol on British car registration plates, but illegal to show the Union flag on British car registration plates? Is that what he is telling the House?

Mr. Straw: It is permitted to show the European Union symbol, and country identification letters are also shown on the vehicle number plate. I have no briefing on the Union flag, but I would be happy for that question to be dealt with in the winding-up speech. There is nothing to stop motorists from proudly displaying a representation of the Union flag on the rear of their vehicles—many do—but not necessarily on the vehicle plate.

Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? It is a matter of great importance.

Mr. Straw: If it were, I would, but it is not, so I shall not.
Part III of the Bill deals with vehicle licensing and registration, and other measures to combat vehicle crime. The present law allows written-off vehicles to return to the road without being checked. That means that the unscrupulous can get away with illegal tampering. The Bill will change that by insisting on an identity check before a new registration document can be issued.
Part III also contains our proposals for tackling uninsured driving. That offence too often goes undetected, yet uninsured drivers are often dangerous and, like those who speed, may well have broken other laws. To combat the problem, the motor insurance industry has proposed that the police should have bulk access to its new database, which will be available from 2003. The Bill will enable that to happen.
Clause 36 extends the time limit for prosecuting unauthorised vehicle taking. Those who take vehicles without the consent of their owners, as well those who thieve from them, cause great distress to their victims and are often also involved in accidents. At the moment, such people can escape justice because of the six-month time limit on the prosecution of offences that are summary only. Advances in DNA and fingerprinting mean that evidence may come to light after the six months have expired.
Clause 37 represents a real improvement in joined-up government. It will allow money received by magistrates courts from fixed penalties for speeding or from jumping red lights to be used to fund the roll-out of safety cameras.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I am sure that the whole House welcomes the decision by the Law Lords a fortnight ago to overturn the rather silly decision in Scotland about the use of speed cameras. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the evidence in the pilot areas now clearly shows that increased use of speed cameras saves lives, and that they are a worthwhile investment? Will he join me in encouraging the House to campaign vigorously against the right-wing libertarian view, as expressed in the Daily Mail, that these measures would be controversial and used as an incentive to trap more motorists? They are a means of saving lives, and that is the justification for them.

Mr. Straw: I share my hon. Friend's view about this improvement. What those at the Daily Mail have to say about it is a matter for them. I dare say that that newspaper opposed the introduction of the breathalyser and the use of seat belts on a similar basis, yet those changes have helped to create a much safer environment for road users. When I was a young man, people used to drink and drive, friends of mine lost their lives, and terrible damage and injury were caused to others. The number of road deaths and injuries is still far too high, but we should be proud that this country's record is far better than that of any other European country that I can think of. We must continue to make progress to improve that record still further.
To give a direct answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), since the pilot schemes came into or operation in eight police force areas, there has been a 20 per cent. improvement in road safety in those areas.

Mr. Bercow: I am not sure why the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) used the description "right-wing libertarian" as though it were a term of abuse. I am more than happy to have that description conferred on me.
Although we have no objection to the use of speed cameras in principle—or, very often, in practice—will the Home Secretary accept that our concern is with the


avoidance of regulation for the sake of regulation? We are also concerned to avoid yet another stealth tax from the Government.

Mr. Straw: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. This road safety measure has broad support across the country, and if the Conservatives want to oppose it, that is a matter for them. However, I am in no doubt that speed cameras moderate drivers' behaviour. After I was apprehended because of a speed camera in 1993—after I had paid my fine and got three points on my licence—my driving behaviour improved, and I think that that is true of other people. I say that from personal experience—incidentally, I have not had any points since then.
I have put on record the need for the Bill and hope that it will have the endorsement of the whole House. I do not doubt that it could be improved in Committee—indeed, I have not introduced a single Bill in the House that has not been improved as a result of the parliamentary process.
We want to build on the Government's strong record in fighting vehicle crime. We should be able to unite against the criminal on the issue of vehicle security. There is a comprehensive set of proposals in the Bill which, I hope the House will agree, deserves a Second Reading. It is a measured response to a number of serious problems, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. John Bercow: I should say at the outset that the official Opposition does not intend to divide the House on Second Reading. The principle of the Bill is unobjectionable and its purpose is valid, although we are at this stage uncertain about its probable effects. The jury is out on that, and we shall have to wait and see.
I greatly enjoyed the Home Secretary's speech—there is nothing unusual in that. I cannot promise that my contribution will be exciting or racy on this important subject, but I will endeavour to address the facts.
I was intrigued by what the right hon. Gentleman said about car crime. He started off by giving the clear impression that he regarded it as a matter of great seriousness, and that although he was pleased that some progress had been made, he was fully conscious of the seriousness of the incidence of offences that still plague the country. However, as he continued, he seemed to display a certain insouciance towards those of us who criticised the Government's record, suggested that an improvement would require an additional resource and were not convinced that the Government's bona fides on the subject were satisfactory.
For the avoidance of doubt, let the facts be placed on the record. I think it very likely that Labour Members will have the precise figures for the number of offences committed over the past couple of years. The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), for example, is a veritable walking—or, in this case, sedentary—encyclopaedia on the Labour Benches. She always knows the facts. However, there may be some who require clarification.
Between March 1998 and March 1999, 1,482,889 car crimes were committed. The following year, there was, interestingly, a reduction in the incidence of car crimes of exactly 7,000, taking the figure down to 1,475,000.

Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Bercow: In a moment, if my hon. Friend will just contain himself. That figure represented a cut in the incidence of car crime of 0.5 per cent., of which more anon.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is, as ever, more than generous to me. Does he agree that some of the reduction in car crime is due to the introduction of closed circuit television cameras? In that respect, will he pay tribute to the previous Government who were responsible for the widespread introduction of closed circuit television cameras throughout the United Kingdom?

Mr. Bercow: I am delighted to pay tribute to the previous Government. I do not always do so on every subject, but in that respect their record was very good. We got the CCTV programme under way and it secured real benefits. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that point.

Mr. David Lammy: As the hon. Gentleman gives credit to the previous Government for the introduction of CCTV, does he agree that, because many police officers are scrutinising those videotapes, they may not be on the streets—the point he has been going on about over the past few months?

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman makes a slightly ungracious point. I hope that he does not deny the significance of CCTV in combating crime; it has an important role to play. I am well aware that, in general, the hon. Gentleman identifies with what might be described as the new Labour philosophy and programme, so he will want to be fully on-message. He will appreciate that Members on the Treasury Bench are accustomed to drawing attention to the plans for the expansion of CCTV schemes in the following year; I hope that he will not cavil at that.
Obviously, the study of the videotapes takes time and requires the commitment of certain officers. Despite Labour Members' unrealistic expectations of the police, it goes without saying that the police cannot be expected to do two things at once. Manifestly, if an officer is studying the video, he or she cannot also be out detecting crime and apprehending criminals.

Mr. Simon Thomas: I am rather surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman describe CCTV as a libertarian measure. I should have thought that his libertarianism would mean that he thought of CCTV as non-libertarian. However, as he accepts CCTV, does he agree that there is no difference between the use of CCTV and of speed cameras?

Mr. Bercow: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's analogy. While we are engaged in a philosophical discussion about what constitutes libertarianism, I emphasise that nothing incumbent on someone who takes a broadly liberal-minded view of the world obliges him to oppose measures that are likely to be successful in reducing the incidence of crime.
The point that I am making about speed cameras is that there is no justification for a massive, universal roll-out of such cameras across the country. The resource required to facilitate such a roll-out is enormous. One can only


assume that Ministers are anxious to extract rich pickings from unsuspecting motorists in the form of heavy fines. In so far as that policy is by way of being a stealth tax, it does not commend itself to Her Majesty's Opposition.

Mr. Miller: I hope that the reduction in deaths that would occur as a result of such a policy commends itself to Her Majesty's Opposition.

Mr. Bercow: I am in favour of reducing both car crime and the incidence of death on the roads. The idea that in order to reduce death on the roads a universal system of CCTV or video speed cameras is required across the country is not sound. If the hon. Gentleman wants to persuade the House of the merits of his argument, I hope that he will be successful in catching your eye in due course, Mr. Speaker.
I shall not be distracted by Labour Members from emphasising that there had been a reduction of 0.5 per cent.—[Interruption] It is no good the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) chuntering at me from a sedentary position. He wants to cover his blushes; he is embarrassed about the record, which shows clearly that in the period to which I referred

Mr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bercow: I have already given the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to intervene and he made a mess of it—I do not see why I should cause him to suffer embarrassment a second time.
Between March 1998–99 and March 1999–2000, there was a reduction of 0.5 per cent. in the incidence of vehicle crime. The significance of that reduction should surely not be lost on even the most obsequious and sycophantic Labour Member. As the Home Secretary helpfully explained, the Government have committed themselves over a five-year period to a 30 per cent. reduction in car crime. The point that I am making—a point that is so blindingly obvious that only an extraordinarily clever person could fail to see it—is that, at present, the Government are a long way from meeting their target. If in the first year, they have secured a cut of only 0.5 per cent. that does not augur well for the prospects of achieving by 2004 the 30 per cent. reduction that the Home Secretary himself described as challenging, but to which the Prime Minister has nevertheless committed the Government. There would need to be an improvement of about 900 per cent. in the Government's performance over the next four years if they were to meet the target for the reduction of vehicle crime with which the Prime Minister has lumbered the Home Secretary.
The Home Secretary is, of course, justified in pointing out the progress that has been made. He is normally a generous man, not only in providing people with match tickets but in conferring praise on those who deserve it. I therefore hope that he will join me in congratulating the previous Government on securing a 26.6 per cent. fall in vehicle crime between 1993 and 1997. That was a real and creditable achievement. I wish the Government well in reducing car crime. It was, shall we say, bold to set the target of a 30 per cent. cut over five years, but at present it does not look as if the Government are likely to achieve it.
It is important to clarify the categories of car crime about which we are speaking. The figure that I mentioned, of slightly fewer than 1.5 million offences between March 1999 and March 2000, included 374,686 offences of the theft of a vehicle, but also 669,232 offences of theft from a vehicle. A clear and large majority of the offences committed are thefts from, rather than of, vehicles.
I was sorry to hear about the Home Secretary's personal misfortune, in respect both of the theft of his car and of the extraction of his stereo. I wanted to intervene to congratulate him on his generosity in offering match tickets, but I could hardly have congratulated him on the measures that he took—or failed to take—to protect his property. He gave the distinct impression that he had failed to secrete his stereo or cassette player in one of the obvious places. He could have put it in the glove compartment or the boot, or he could have wandered off to his next meeting with it on his person.

Mr. Straw: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bercow: It is perfectly possible to extract the frontage to prevent a stereo from being stolen.

Mr. Steve McCabe: Is that general advice from those on the Opposition Front Bench—that if some me has a fixed stereo unit they should dismantle it and secrete it in the glove compartment?

Mr. Bercow: I grant that if the unit is fixed that makes it more difficult. I have a different arrangement myself, and I would be happy to communicate the obvious benefits to the Home Secretary. If he wishes to accompany me to the car park I will show him my system, which has a real advantage over his, and I could advise him on what steps to take so as greatly to reduce the chances of his suffering such a crime again.
The significance of car crime is well understood, but so too, should be the significance of Government policy in relation to it. I acknowledge that the Government have taken some steps to counteract the threat of car criminals, but they have also taken other steps that give altogether the opposite impression of their intentions.
I hope that I shall enjoy the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that it is pitiful that since the inception of the home detention curfew scheme in January 1999—I remind the House that that has resulted in the early release of 27,000 serious offenders—no fewer than 300 car thieves have been let out of jail early. Typically, as the figures demonstrate, they are released before they have served half their sentence.
That sends the wrong signal. The undesirable message is: "Don't worry. You will be caught, sentenced and locked up, but you will only be incarcerated for a short time. Then you will be released and have the opportunity to resume your life of crime." That is an extraordinary state of affairs. It is peculiar that the Government should, on one hand, introduce the Bill—which has at least the appearance of robustness—and, on the other, pursue a policy that genuinely merits my recent description of the Home Secretary as a lily-livered liberal.
Is it any wonder that this country's criminal classes are praying for a Labour election victory? [Interruption.] I am surprised that that causes such surprise among


Government Members; they must know that if they pursue soft penal policies and release people from jail before they have typically served half their sentence, people will be encouraged in the belief that crime is not taken all that seriously and that they can come out of prison and, either immediately, or after a reasonable, decent interval, embark on a continuing life of crime. I must emphasise the fact that that is so obvious that it is surprising that anyone chooses to dispute it.
I was grateful to the Home Secretary for his confirmation of the position as shown by the British crime survey. I know that he is greatly attached to that survey; he clutches sheaves of statistics to his breast every time he comes to the Chamber, but I was pleased that he confirmed the British crime survey's finding that the level of car crime is roughly twice what is officially recorded. Interestingly, as the Home Secretary will know and as my right hon. and hon. Friends should be aware, 61 per cent. of thefts are from vehicles and only 11 per cent. are thefts of vehicles. That confirms the overall trend, and it is relevant to the Bill, for as I will say later, and I have support from outside organisations in doing so, the Bill overwhelmingly deals with the theft of vehicles rather than with the statistically more significant phenomenon of theft from vehicles—[Interruption]—as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) concurs from a sedentary position. So we are talking about 28 per cent. of all recorded crime in 1999–2000—crime that costs about £3.5 billion a year.
The Home Secretary was right to emphasise the effect of such crime, but unless I misheard him he did not emphasise its full effects. He rightly said that financial loss, inconvenience and personal distress are involved, but more than that is at stake. Vehicle crime is not only distressing to its victims, but represents a gateway to the commission of other serious offences, such as drug trafficking and terrorism. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that we need to view such crime in that context.
The target for the reduction is good, challenging and bold; it might even be describedw—this will terrify the Home Secretary—as a brave target. Despite the announcement of the target, we know two facts about the Bill. First, almost certainly, it will not reach the statute book before the Prime Minister tames the day for a general election, so it should be considered in context. I do not doubt that on the basis of pager messages and Millbank tower briefings, there will be no shortage of supportive speeches from Labour Members; they will rush to shower confetti on the Home Secretary, tell him what a good chap he is and embolden him to pursue the measures contained in the Bill; but the reality is that the Bill, introduced at the fag end—if that is not a politically incorrect term—of this Parliament will not reach the statute book before a general election takes place.

Mr. Forth: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will deal with this matter later in his speech, but in the context of what he has just said, does he agree that, lest anyone should imagine that the Bill is uncontroversial, clause 9 contains our old friend, the right to enter and inspect premises? I pick that clause at random to emphasise the fact that if the Government are under any illusion that they can introduce the Bill now, declare it uncontroversial

and try to blackmail both Houses of Parliament into slipping it through without very thorough scrutiny, they will be very much mistaken.

Mr. Bercow: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend's observation. It is no secret that he and I have what in political terms might be described as a symbiotic relationship; periodically, I can anticipate my right hon. Friend, but he is invariably able to anticipate me. Lest he should worry, I assure him that I intend to say something about that provision. What is more, I had fully intended to do so even without his characteristically helpful observation. The Bill will not become law before the election in any case.
The second fact that we know about the Bill is that there will be 3,000 fewer police officers to enforce it. I was as shocked as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary by the Home Secretary's alarming display of complacency. Of course, we do not have to increase the size of the police force every time a new Bill is introduced, but people outside the House will now start to get the clear message that there is a chronic mismatch—a gaping chasm—between Ministers' rhetoric and the reality of the policies that they pursue. Again and again, Ministers promise more, but deliver less. It is not reasonable of them to push through legislation, to make highfalutin promises and to commit themselves to great policy objectives while expecting others who are reduced in number, increased in terms of pressure and diminished in terms of political support from those on the Treasury Bench still to achieve those objectives.
The leaders of our police forces do not lightly speak out in public. I hope that, when they do so, the Home Secretary will listen. I was concerned when, in a response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), the Home Secretary airily dismissed the observations of a senior policeman by saying that he says something every six months or so, that he has been doing so for about 10 years and, therefore, that no special significance should be attached to his remarks. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, just as he is an important, highly influential and greatly respected man with a full diary, the same goes for the chairman of the Police Federation. When the chairman of the Police Federation speaks out, the Home Secretary should listen, especially because the chairman has castigated the right hon. Gentleman for the inadequacy of the support that he has made available to the police while increasing their responsibilities all the while.
Let us consider the detailed proposals for cutting car crime. The Home Secretary rightly referred to the vehicle crime reduction action team. As he well knows, its strategy focuses on several objectives. The first is better vehicle security and several measures offer the prospect of improving the detection of car crime and deterring its incidence. Electronic immobilisers on new cars are compulsory under the European Union law of 1998 and the anti-theft directive of 1995–96.
It is now proposed that it should be compulsory for cars that are seven to 10 years old to have electronic immobilisers. Instead of applying the idea simply to new cars, it is possible that the owners of old cars will be requested—or more likely, obliged—to install immobilisers. I have not yet observed my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) quivering at that suggestion, but it is only a matter of time


before he becomes alarmed. It is a cost issue, and we have to strike a balance. Although we want to improve vehicle security, we do not want to impose burdens that people cannot realistically be expected shoulder. I do not know what the cost of developing the policy would be, but it is incumbent on the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), to share that information with us when he winds up.
The Government have not yet pursued the idea of making the installation of electronic immobilisers compulsory on cars of seven to 10 years old. I do not know whether they intend to do so, but I am sure that the Under-Secretary can enlighten me. I hope that he will. The vehicle crime reduction action team has estimated that such a development could result in the commission of 60,000 fewer offences by 2004.
That raises an interesting question. Do the Government intend to make installation compulsory for seven to 10-year-old cars? The answer is important. If they do not intend to do that, there will be a saving—a burden for consumers forgone—but the prospect of reducing offences by 60,000 by 2004, after which the Under-Secretary no doubt hankers, will be removed. If they intend to go ahead with the compulsory policy for older vehicles, they might have a slightly greater chance of achieving their car crime reduction target, but only at the personal expense of a large number of car buyers of—I must emphasise—more modest means.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Has it escaped my hon. Friend's notice that drivers of more modest means drive more modest and older vehicles and are much less likely to have their vehicles stolen, precisely as a consequence of the modest and elderly nature of the vehicle?

Mr. Bercow: I am not sure that that is true. Some car criminals are fairly undiscriminating. We know that they steal to feed a habit. It is uncertain that they take a sophisticated view as part of the car cognoscenti. For once, I am sorry to say, I fear that my hon. Friend might be wrong.

Mr. Chidgey: Perhaps I can help. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) might be wrong. Work by Sallybanks and Thomas shows that the highest number of vehicles stolen are owned by people on the lowest incomes, who live in the most disrupted areas and whose cars are of a lower value and older.

Mr. Bercow: That is a helpful observation. It might be churlish to suggest this, but I wonder whether that important information was given to the hon. Member for Eastleigh by my very good friend, the excellent prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Eastleigh, Mr. Conor Burns. I know not—but it is likely.
We have talked about better vehicle security, but we should also mention better enforcement. I must emphasise that enforcement is a great task for the police, but they have suffered a huge cut in numbers, which will not change immediately. It is also a challenge for the crime

and disorder partners. Although there is no strict statistical relationship between areas in which police numbers have been reduced and those in which car crime is alarmingly high, it must logically follow that if fewer officers are available, it is more difficult to investigate thefts. The trend, therefore, is not likely to improve, but over a period it will be exacerbated.
The Government have emphasised the importance of a safer environment. They are right to do so, because 22 per cent. of vehicle crime occurs in car parks. Ministers are justified in highlighting the need for CCTV. The secured car parks scheme is also significant, but has not been mentioned. It is supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers and some evidence suggests that it is achieving worthwhile results. Ministers tell us that £153 million is available until March 2002 for CCTV. We anticipate that they will not get around to spending that money because we hope to have crossed to the other side of the House by then, but we are strongly committed to continuing the programme.
There is also a role for the modernisation of information systems. The motor industry anti-fraud and theft computerised database holds information about insured vehicles that are stolen or subject to insurance write-offs. The register will be linked to DVLA from next year, which augurs well for the prospects of a reduction in car crime. The motor insurance database will hold details of all insurance policies on individually insured vehicles and will, I think, be operational in 2001. It will link directly to the police national computer and should enable uninsured drivers to be more easily identified. I think that I am also correct in saying that the MOT record is to be computerised and fully operational from 2002–03. That bodes well, although I am getting no signal from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on that point.
Part I deals with the regulation of motor salvage operators, on which the Home Secretary dwelt for a few minutes. Let us be clear about our definitions. Salvage or recycling companies are defined as
any person, persons, company or organisation taking possession of or dealing in stolen and recovered, damaged or redundant motor vehicles for the purpose or repair, salvage or recycling.
The Bill defines motor salvage as:
the recovery for re-use or sale of salvageable parts from motor vehicles,
followed by the
sale or other disposal for scrap of the remainder of the vehicles concerned.
It goes on to define it as:
the purchase of written-off vehicles and their subsequent repair and re-sale.
It should be emphasised that most decent, reputable motor salvage operators provide an excellent service, which consists of disposing of about 1.5 million vehicles each year. In 1998, about 430,000 vehicles were written off by insurance companies; it is those vehicles that currently provide the cover to disguise the true identity of some of the 120,000 vehicles stolen and not recovered in 1997–98. The police estimate that about 65 per cent., or 78,000, of the stolen and unrecovered vehicles are either rung—of which more anon—or broken for spare parts: it is thought that approximately 25 per cent. are rung and 40 per cent. broken for spare parts. In addition, insurance


fraud is thought to account for a further 20 per cent., or 24,000 vehicles, some of which will end up in the salvage industry and be reported stolen by the owner.
Advocates of statutory regulation contend that the lack of it provides a green light for the disposal of stolen vehicles. Existing regulation is controlled by the insurance industry and the trade associations. The British Vehicle Salvage Federation represents 75 larger salvage dealers which together represent about 75 per cent. of the insurance industry salvage business. The Motor Vehicle Dismantlers Association of Great Britain represents smaller dealers whose primary function is dismantling; it represents only about 10 per cent. of the 2,000 to 2,500 dismantlers in Great Britain, which is significant in the context of the Bill's regulatory provisions. So that we are aware of the terms and the context in which we are debating the Bill, the sector as a whole consists of about 2,500 to 3,000 companies, which together employ between 20,000 and 30,000 people.
The trade associations operate a code of practice that is based on co-operation with the DVLA and, through it, with the police, but that approach is thought to suffer from several weaknesses. First, the ability of those organisations to police their own members is limited. Secondly, the code of practice has not been adopted by hire companies or by the Crown, which operates large fleets of vehicles that carry their own insurance against total loss. Thirdly, and most significantly, up to 25 per cent. of the salvage business and up to 90 per cent. of the dismantling business are not covered by the code. That is the rationale behind the issuing by the Home Office of its consultation document on the proposed regulation of the motor salvage industry. I feel sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends are aware that that document flagged up several possibilities, of which statutory regulation was one. If memory serves correctly, of the 26 organisations that responded to the exercise, 22 favoured the option of statutory regulation.

Mr. Fabricant: I have been listening with great interest to my hon. Friend's comments on the failure to some extent of self-regulation within the industry. Does that not imply that, for the legislation to be successful, there must be a degree of supervision by the regulatory authorities, in this case the police? Does that not provide prima facie evidence either that there will have to be extra police officers to do the work, or that other aspects of law and order will suffer as a consequence?

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is invariably perceptive, and his observation was no exception to the general rule. He is right. It upsets and perturbs me that the Home Secretary, who much of the time is a sensible fellow, persists in ignoring or denying this obvious point.
I can see that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) is becoming itchy, so I shall give way.

Mr. McCabe: I want to clarify a simple point that arises from the intervention of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). Does not clause 13 give the local authority powers to prosecute and supervise in relation to that part of the Bill?

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that observation. He is partly right, but he should be

aware—I do not dispute his textual reference—that there will be a responsibility on police constables as well. I am sure that he will not dispute that. If there are fewer of them, if there is more crime to detect and if the political pressure on them to be successful in doing so is greater, I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to recognise that somewhere along the line the equation breaks down. That is not fair on the police.
I find it curious—I am sure that this has not escaped the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends—that whereas in respect of many of the great public services, Labour Members rush to the defence of those employed in delivering them and are always anxious to improve their conditions in recognising what a difficult job they do, when it comes to the police they are happy to increase the burdens but not ready to pay tribute to the enormous work against the odds, often under severe physical threat, that the officers undertake. I am not applying that point to the Home Secretary, but many Back-Bench Labour Members are guilty of that approach.
Under part I, motor salvage operators will need to be registered with the local authority in which they are based. The local authority will have powers to refuse renewal of registrations, having originally granted them. Operators will have to keep records of the vehicles entering the industry and of disposals. The Government believe that their policy could avoid about 39,000 vehicle thefts and 6,000 fraudulent insurance claims each year, with an economic benefit of £183 million.
Allan Greenouff on behalf of the British Vehicle Salvage Federation, John Hesketh on behalf of the Motor Vehicle Dismantlers Association, Richard Allen on behalf of the Association of British Insurers, Sandy Dalgano on behalf of the National Salvage Group, the AA, and Ken Williams, the chief constable of Norfolk and the representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers on VCRAT, have all welcomed the Bill. Nevertheless, several issues require the close attention of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst characteristically identified one of them at an early stage in the debate.
I have in mind, of course, clause 9, which will give police constables the power to enter and inspect registered motor salvage premises and their records without warrant. It makes provision for searches with warrants to take place at premises that are unregistered or where a police constable has previously been refused entry.
Is that necessary? It is not clear to me that it is.

Mr. Fabricant: Will there be enough officers?

Mr. Bercow: It is not even clear to me, as indicated by the sedentary intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, that there will be sufficient police officers effectively to discharge the statutory obligation.
There appears to be a slightly curious differential between the treatment of premises that are registered and that of those that are not. Why are registered operators apparently subject to harsher treatment than that meted out to their unregistered counterparts? I shall be grateful for the comments of the Under-Secretary of State when he replies.
Secondly, clause 8 will require all motor salvage dealers to provide notifications of the destruction of a vehicle. At present, under the code of conduct, those who


belong to the BVSF and the MVDA comply with that process. They already send certificates, which are V860s, to the DVLA. The idea behind the code of conduct was that when the DVLA has received a V860 for a vehicle, it will refuse to issue a V5 in response to any future request as it would know that the car in question was permanently broken and that the request must therefore be fraudulent.
I consider myself no great authority on the matter, but I am told that the arrangement worked well for a while, before someone spotted a loophole in the law. Apparently—I should be grateful for comeback on this point from the Under-Secretary, who is looking earnestly in the direction of those who advise—the DVLA is technically not allowed to refuse a V5 request. All that it can do is to issue the V5 and ask the police to investigate. I feel sure that I am carrying my right hon. and hon. Friends with me on this important theme.
Now the DVLA must issue V5s for cars that it knows no longer exist, and it can only notify the police—the underfunded, overburdened, insufficiently supported police. In practice, of course, the police investigate different proportions of such referrals in different police areas. Some routinely investigate all, but some investigate only a few.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he concede that it is his experience, as it is mine and that of many other people, that the police, rightly but regrettably, give greater priority to crimes involving violence, violence against the person, housebreaking and so on, and that vehicle offences come, rightly, pretty low down on the priority list of most, if not all, police forces? If my hon. Friend agrees with that general contention, what does he think will be the effectiveness of the role of the police in discharging the responsibilities given to them by the Bill?

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend's judgment of the significance of car crime in the overall scale of police priorities is almost certainly right. They are more likely to focus on violent crime and they are especially justified in doing so in light of the figures for increasing violent crime over the past 12 months or so. In other words, the position on violent crime is being made substantially worse. In London, for example, another 36,000, I think, violent offences were committed over the past 12 months. That requires a police resource.
The police will have to focus first and foremost on that, yet they are faced with the introduction of the Bill. I would like to think that Ministers will be modest, but I suspect that they will trumpet the provisions of the Bill, claim to be robust and insist that they are involved in a ferocious crackdown on vehicle crime.
All that the Home Secretary will have done, which is not an insignificant accomplishment, but it is an exiguous one, is to pilot through the Bill. Police officers will have to do the dirty work—police officers of whom there are not enough, who face greater regulatory burdens and who are confronted with a large increase in violent crime, not least as a result of the lily-livered feebleness that the right hon. Gentleman has displayed over the past three and a half years.

Mrs. Gilroy: A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman correctly made the link between motor vehicle crime and

drug crime. He will acknowledge, I think, that there is also a link between drug crime and violent crime. Will he therefore give a little more credit to our police to assign priority to such matters?

Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to be so misinterpreted by the hon. Lady, who usually has a keen ear and attends closely to what is said. I was not in any way criticising or casting aspersions on the police. For the avoidance of doubt, I. was criticising and casting aspersions on the Government's record, from which both the innocent public and the police suffer.
I am not cavilling at the achievement of the police, nor am I saying—I emphasise this to the hon. Lady—that they should not give priority to the pursuit of violent criminals. [Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Lady chuntering from a sedentary position in an entirely unintelligible manner, when I am seeking to respond effectively to the half-point that she made.
Of course, the police are right to focus on violent crime. However, they are being charged with additional responsibilities under the Bill, but are not being promised increased resources to discharge those responsibilities. I made that point earlier, but I am repeating it, as it is so obvious that it is extraordinary that even a new Labour apparatchik can choose to ignore or deny it.

Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being generous in giving way for the third, or even fourth, time. Is he surprised to learn that the office of the chief constable of Staffordshire has informed me that the latest Government initiative—the crackdown on yob culture—will be difficult to achieve on a Friday or Saturday night in Lichfield, where there are only three or four police officers, backed up by, perhaps, five or six special constables? How will those police officers meet the provisions of clause 9? The clause states that, in addition to cracking down on yob culture,
A constable may at am reasonable time
enter and inspect premises for the purposes of the Bill.

Mr. Bercow: Police officers will be able to do that only with great difficulty, if at all. The experience in the centre of Lichfield to which my hon. Friend referred is by no means atypical. He will find that it is replicated throughout the country in constituencies of my right hon. and hon. Friends and importantly, those of Government Members. I hope that Government Members will have something to say about the mismatch between the responsibility that will be imposed and the resources that will be provided. How ever, I am not to be distracted from the important point.

Mrs. Gilroy: The hon. Gentleman may wish to take advice from the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), in whose constituency violent crime has gone down in the first eight months of this year. Violent crime has gone down by 23 per cent. in Plymstock Radford in that constituency; by 13 per cent. in my constituency; by 38 per cent. in Efford; by 21 per cent. in Plymstock Dunstone; by 4 per cent. in Plympton St. Mary; and by 18 per cent. in Plympton Erle. Therefore, there are examples to which the hon. Gentleman can look to see what works.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's observation, but I am not sure that she has advanced her


cause greatly. Of course, there are examples of the reduction of crime. I join the hon. Lady in celebrating the reduction in violent crime. However, I hope that she will acknowledge that, statistically, it is clear that, overall, violent crime is increasing substantially. We know that in London, the Thames valley area, and throughout the country.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Sylvia Heal): I remind hon. Members that this is a debate about vehicles. It is not a debate about statistics and the levels of crime.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for steering me back on to the path of virtue, along which, as you know, I ordinarily tread. I am not going to be diverted again by observations about violent crime, and shall focus on vehicle crime.
As I said a few moments ago, I want to emphasise the fact that the DVLA must issue V5s for cars which, it knows, no longer exist, and of which it can only notify the police. In practice, the police investigate differently in different areas. Some police investigate routinely, but others investigate only a few offences. It is notable that an experienced observer advised Her Majesty's Opposition that, nationally, the chance of being investigated is about 7 per cent. I must tell the Home Secretary that I can see nothing in the Bill that will change the law and allow the DVLA to refuse V5 applications for vehicles for which it has received V860s. Is that not a loophole, and do the Government intend to close it? If not, Ministers must provide more police to allow for routine investigation of such cases, which the fight against crime and the protection of the public patently require.

Mr. David Kidney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his usual courtesy in giving way. To help him, does not clause 32 enable the Secretary of State to make new regulations to permit the DVLA to refuse to issue the new certificate?

Mr. Bercow: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right in supposing that the Bill will prevent the automatic issue of V5s. I have looked at the Bill closely and consulted on it. However, I am a generous and gracious chap, so I say to the hon. Gentleman, who is a keen observer of all our proceedings, that I shall happily concede to him if he is right and I am wrong. I hope that he is right, but I am not optimistic.

Mr. Kidney: I shall listen out in Committee.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is welcome to do so and he knows that I shall not seek to avoid responsibility for dealing with the point.
Page 4 of the Home Office consultation paper on the proposal to regulate the motor salvage industry contains a statement that should be of some concern to the House. Paragraph 34 states:
It is not considered that it would be necessary to formally monitor the effectiveness of the regulation.
I shall not dwell on the split infinitive, but I point out that that observation is complacent and irresponsible. Ministers should intend to monitor closely, regularly and publicly the outcome of any measures in the Bill if they eventually become law.
There are a number of other concerns about part I. For example, the British Motorcyclists Federation thinks that it is deficient in particular respects and is susceptible to amendment in Committee. For now, however, I shall focus on part II, which deals with the regulation of registration plate suppliers. It is estimated that approximately 27,000 outlets assemble number plates and that they supply about 6 million to 7 million plates each year. About 2 million plates are fitted to new vehicles and a further 2 million are trade-ins. Replacement plates account for the balance.
The main objective of part II is to regulate the supply of number plates in order to combat vehicle ringing and cloning. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary is pointing to the time. I am sure that other hon. Members want to contribute, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the matter must be thoroughly examined. Earlier, he referred indirectly to the phenomenon of vehicle ringing, but did not define it. It is, however, important, as it is central to the Bill. To elucidate for people outside the House who are listening to our proceedings, I should point out that vehicle ringing is the name attached to the process of giving to stolen vehicles the identity of legitimate vehicles that have been seriously damaged or written off. Vehicle cloning uses the identity of an existing vehicle to disguise another vehicle.
I think that I am right in saying that Sweden, which has tightly controlled number plate supply since 1993, is much more successful in deterring criminal offences and in identifying those that have been perpetrated. Part II, which contains clauses 16 to 30, provides for the registration of persons who supply number plates and allows the Secretary of State to make details of the register available to the police. It provides also for the charging of a registration fee and confers a power by which the court may suspend registrations of persons who contravene it. In addition, it provides a power to prosecute for contravention of statutory requirements.

Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Bercow: I shall do so in a moment. Part II also allows the Secretary of State to remove from the register persons whom he believes to have ceased trading. There is some uncertainty about the reason for the specific provision on that. However, before I come to that concern, I must, of course, come to my hon. Friend's aid.

Mr. Fabricant: After his study of the Bill, does my hon. Friend know whether licence plate manufacturers will be subject to a tighter obligation to ensure that they produce plates in the proper manner? Has he noticed the number of licence plates with italic writing or strange graphics that make them difficult to read? Such plates are not printed in Roman, sanserif script, which is the prescribed form.

Mr. Bercow: I do not know how heavy an obligation will be placed on plate manufacturers. On the plates' composition and appearance, my feeling is that what counts is the capacity to detect crime. If virtual or total uniformity of appearance aids and abets the detection of crime, I am happy to settle for it. However, I must emphasise to my hon. Friend that if the different composition or appearance of number plates seemed to be insignificant to the level of crime, I would be much more


relaxed about that. Fighting crime is what matters, although, in general terms, as he knows, I favour choice and diversity.
I want to deal with the point about removing people from the register of practising plate suppliers, about which, I say to the Home Secretary, I was a little quizzical. If memory serves me correctly, the Bill provides a power, which he can exercise, to deregister a registered plates supplier who has not practised that trade or profession for 28 days. I do not want to do him a disservice: the Bill provides for such an individual to make representations, there is a period of grace—14 days, if memory serves me correctly—in which to make those representations, there is the prospect of an appeal and, ultimately, in the event of a continuing disagreement between a plate supplier and the Secretary of State, the matter can go to a magistrates court. However, I am intrigued, first, as to why 28 days was chosen. I have made discreet inquiries and understand that the figure was a brainwave of those in his Department who advise him, though it was plucked arbitrarily from the air and there is no particular reason for specifying 28 days rather than 42 or 56.
Secondly, what would lead Ministers to suspect that someone had ceased to trade? I may have failed to notice an obvious point, but feel sure that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham, would put my mind at rest in such circumstances. I put it to the Home Secretary that it is entirely possible that someone might cease to trade for such a period because he or she had gone abroad or for personal or family reasons, so it seems rather draconian to put or to threaten to put such a person out of business. What scope will there be for recompense should it transpire that an error has been made in deregistering him or her?

Mr. Blunt: That point also applies to the regulation of motor salvage operators. The Bill will not allow them to receive restitution should their business be affected by local authority registration and should they successfully appeal through the magistrates courts and on through the legal system. Why does not it enable them to obtain such restitution, as required under the European convention on human rights, even though the explanatory notes refer to that convention? I am grateful to the Clerks for acknowledging that there has been an administrative error. There may be a convention problem in respect of the lack of provision for restitution.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend asks why the Bill does not make such provision. I do not know because I am not psychic, but I feel sure that Ministers know and they will be able to advise us during the winding-up speech or before.
Clause 25 will give police constables and local authority inspectors the power to enter and inspect registered suppliers and their records without a warrant. It also provides for searches with warrants to take place on unregistered premises. Again, I flag up the concern that that seems to be harder on suppliers who are registered than on those who are not. In that context, the Bill also creates three new offences, one of which is knowingly supplying plates to a person who is in the

business of selling fake registration plates. That will be hard to prove, and I should be interested to know what thinking took place on the measure, but I certainly wish Ministers God speed in relation to it.
Clause 20 will allow the Secretary of State to cancel a person's registration if he is satisfied that the registered person has ceased trading. That relates to the point about ceasing to trade for 28 days. I must re-emphasise that we need to know not only the rationale for that proposal, but what recompense would be available should a mistaken decision be made.
Another concern of some importance has been raised by the European Secure Vehicle Alliance. A plate that does not meet the technical design specifications established by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and which is intended, for example, to deceive a roadside camera will be deemed to be counterfeit. Is it also intended to deem counterfeit plates that are supplied without due diligence to a buyer seeking to deceive the purchaser of a vehicle of uncertain provenance? I feel sure that Ministers know the answer, and I hope we shall hear it in the winding-up speech.
Clause 33 allows the Secretary of State, by regulations, to prescribe specifications for number plates, and/or to require them to contain or display such information as he thinks fit. The DETR consultation paper raised the possibility—alluded to earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—that the information would include anything from the vehicle inspection number to the European flag. It would be helpful to know whether the Government plan to include vehicle inspection numbers, and what impact Ministers think that would have on vehicle security and car crime.
If the Government intend to make the change, will it be made to coincide with the introduction of the new licence-plate system next year? For my part, I have little doubt about the impact of any European-flag provision: it would probably damage the car, and it would certainly damage my concentration when driving it.
I was a little perturbed to hear the Home Secretary say that he had no briefing on whether it would be possible to display a Union flag. If the right hon. Gentleman had allowed me to intervene, I would have said I assumed that—as a senior and respected Minister—he ran his Department, and did not allow his Department to run him. If he agrees with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that a person should be allowed to display a Union flag, why does he not just say so?
If the Bill requires amendment in order to facilitate that option, let it be amended in Committee. It would, however, be intolerable to be presented with a scenario allowing people to display a European Union flag, but not a Union flag. The only succour I can derive from what we have been told so far is that, at least for the time being, the provision in respect of the display of the European flag is permissive rather than prescriptive: that is, its display would be voluntary rather than compulsory.
I am not a great driver; I am not even an enthusiastic driver. I am happy to vouchsafe that I regard driving as an unavoidable necessity—a chore—a means by which to get from A to B. Unlike most men, I do not claim to be a good driver. In certain circumstances, I could be tempted to desist from driving at all, and one of those circumstances would be an obligation to display a European Union flag. If for the remaining years of my


parliamentary service—and I hope there will be many—I had to travel to and from my constituency by means other than a car, I would do so, if the alternative were being obliged to display a vulgar—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the subject of the debate is clearly not to do with the European flag. We are actually debating vehicle crime.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have brought me to book, and I hope you will not have reason to do so again.

Mr. Forth: As car registration plates are a matter directly connected with the Bill, and as my hon. Friend is now correctly discussing the issue of car registration plates, he may consider this point relating to car registration plates.
My hon. Friend will know of recent reports that London taxi cab drivers have been prohibited from displaying the English flag on their registration plates. A question was asked earlier about the display of the Welsh flag on Welsh car registration plates, which would of course be covered by the Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that we face very peculiar circumstances, in which we shall apparently be unable to identify ourselves voluntarily with a specific part of this country—whether by means of a flag or by other means—but obliged to subscribe to the idea that we are all Europeans?

Mr. Bercow: I am genuinely alarmed by the news that my right hon. Friend has volunteered. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, pointed out that I must not dilate on the subject of the European flag, however great the temptation otherwise so to do might be. Of course, I immediately comply with your instruction, but I point out that clause 33 specifically enables the Secretary of State by regulation to provide specifications for registration plates—it will not have escaped the beady eye of my right hon. Friend—
(whether relating to their size, shape, material of manufacture or otherwise).
"Otherwise" is an all-embracing term. Specifications may relate to size, shape and material of manufacture, but also "otherwise". I emphasise to the Home Secretary—I do not think that he will deny it—that, if he wanted, under the Bill and specifically under clause 33(1)(a), he would be able to specify either that people could fly a particular flag on the plate, or that they could not do so. That is perfectly within his competence under the clause.

Mr. Blunt: I think that my hon. Friend will find that the European Union flag will come under subsection (b), the next one in the Bill, but I do not understand what his complaint is. If this country is unfortunate enough still to have the Government after the next election, the flag of the European Union will indeed be his national flag.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all hon. Members that "Erskine May" makes it clear that the Second Reading debate should not extend to the details of clauses. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and others not to anticipate debates that are properly held in Committee.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful for that guidance. I simply accept the correction that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) issued.
A number of important issues in relation to vehicle crime are covered by part III. The proposed vehicle identity checks, for example, have received a mixed reception, but the Association of British Insurers welcomes them. However, it emphasises that many total loss vehicles are not regulated by the current code of practice because they do not pass through the hands of insurers.
That prompts two concerns. I feel sure that the Home Secretary is listening attentively to the two concerns that I wish to highlight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Why should he?

Mr. Bercow: The Under-Secretary of State says, "Why should he?" I will tell him why the Home Secretary should be listening and why he should be concerned. There are real grievances about the Bill. There are anxieties about cost. There are concerns about over-regulation. There is a desire that it should achieve the purpose that has been established for it.
If the Under-Secretary of State in the fag end of the Parliament is so arrogant as to suppose that, simply because officials draft a Bill and the Home Secretary commends it to the House, there should be no further significant debate on the principles which inform it, he is wrong. So long as I and my right hon. and hon. Friends are in the House, he is to be disappointed because we will continue to argue the toss. We will look at the detail. We will expose the mismatch between Government words and Government deeds. If he wishes to provoke me further, he can do so. We will not abandon our obligation, which is to look at the detail.
I said that the ABI emphasised that total loss vehicles were not regulated by the current code of practice because they did not pass through the hands of insurers. There are two concerns on that front. First, some vehicles are returned by the owner either because he does not wish to give up the salvage to the insurer who has settled the claim—perhaps because he wishes to rebuild the car—or because he was himself liable for the accident and is not comprehensively insured. In the latter case, the insurer may never become aware of the damage to the vehicle.
The Government apparently believe that human rights legislation prevents them from compelling those motorists to hand over their vehicles to insurers, or to ensure that they are disposed of in accordance with the code of practice. The ABI believes that that is contrary to the public interest. I should genuinely be grateful for the response of the Under-Secretary of State when he winds up the debate.
Secondly, there is the numerically larger problem of "self-insured" vehicles. Some large organisations give securities or deposits and have no commercial insurance cover at all. Certain Crown vehicles come into that category. Other vehicles have insurance cover only for the third party element of any claim, and their owners themselves are therefore responsible for the disposal of damaged vehicles. The Association of British Insurers would like those organisations to abide by the code of practice because the higher specification newer models of which they dispose are a prime source of vehicles for ringing.
Clarification of the Government's intentions on those two types of cases would be helpful. However, in both types of cases, the ABI emphasises that it is essential that vehicle identity checks are conducted on total-loss vehicles returning to the road and that the regulations will be drafted accordingly.
I gather that the initial legislation will also require the conduct of vehicle identity checks on only three of the four total-loss categories. Do the Government intend to extend the provision to the fourth category? I am looking in eager anticipation of some guidance on that point from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, whose at least partial responsibility it is. The fourth category, of course, is that in which a vehicle is reparable but still written off by the insurer to minimise overheads during the repair period, if the Government intend that the provision should apply to the fourth category, can Ministers give some idea of when they intend to ensure that it does so?
Clause 36 will extend the time-limit for bringing prosecutions for theft of a vehicle. As the current provision effectively prevents many car criminals from being apprehended and prosecuted because the time-limit has been reached, that extension seems to be an eminently sensible change. The current situation is silly, and we are right to try to assist the fight against crime as the Government seem to be proposing.
Clause 37 will allow the Lord Chancellor's Department to make payments to magistrates courts to cover their costs in administering and hearing speed and traffic-camera cases. That provision, too, seems unobjectionable in principle.
I now come to the matter of costs. It is estimated that costs on business will be about £13 million to £20 million in the first year, and £11 million to £18 million annually thereafter. We are told by Ministers that costs to the Exchequer will be met from within departmental limits. The impression is given, therefore, that there is nothing with which we need to concern ourselves.
We are told that the cost to police will be about £110,000 annually. Ministers seem relaxed about that cost, too, on the basis that, as the checks would form part of the routine police investigation, police would "absorb the costs". It is rather less certain that police are quite as relaxed about the burden that Ministers have cheerfully imposed on them.
On behalf of the British Vehicle Salvage Federation, Allan Greenouff—I think that the Home Secretary owes it to the sector to pay attention to this—stated:
any costs, particularly for registration, which will fall on the vehicle salvage industry, as a result of the new legislation, must be kept to a minimum. So many requirements are being imposed on the industry at the present time, which is a very bad economic period, and any additional costs must be fixed for administration only and should not include any costs for police enforcement. If this is not the case, the new law will represent an unfair burden on the salvage industry which could lead to more withdrawals in the market. This would be disastrous at a time when maximum capacity is needed to handle end of life vehicles according to the forthcoming ELV directive and the ever increasing problem of abandoned vehicles.
Mr. Greenouff adds that the proposed regulations on vehicle identity checks are a cause of concern to his members. He is sceptical of the cost and practicality of

the proposals in part III, and he gives notice that the drafting of proposals that are both workable and acceptable may
result in protracted negotiations in the coming months.
We have glancingly referred to the subject of regulations. No fewer than nine clauses in the Bill—clauses 7, 8, 17, 23, 24, 32, 33, 34 and 35—provide for government by regulation. When will the regulations be published in draft? Will they be debated in the House, or are they to be rammed through under the negative procedure, which allows no debate? Can the Home Secretary guarantee that a minimum of three months will be allowed for consultation? How much notice will be given of the intended date for implementation?
The regulation issue is important. Small business has to negotiate a sea of regulation that is unprecedented in the history of the United Kingdom. I call to mind an important observation made by the director-general of British Chambers of Commerce, Mr. Chris Humphries—on 20 January 2000, if I remember correctly—that, despite the Government's rhetoric, they had dramatically increased the regulatory burdens that threaten small business competitiveness. In Britain, 99.6 per cent. of businesses employ fewer than 100 people. Those businesses account for approximately 57 per cent. of the private sector work force and generate two fifths of national output.
I am sure that the Home Secretary will acknowledge from the figures that I gave earlier, and from his own knowledge of the motor salvage and dismantling industries, that the great majority of companies in the sector are small businesses. Indeed, some of them qualify for the Department of Trade and Industry's description "micro-businesses", because they employ fewer than 10 people. If regulation can be justified because the benefit that it will achieve outweighs the cost that it will impose, we are game for that. However, it makes sense to ensure that the regulation is proportionate.
I hope that the Home Secretary, as an experienced Minister, will accept that one of the problems that has bedevilled business over the years—under Governments of both complexions, I readily concede—is that British officials have tended over-zealously to interpret European directives and regulations to the detriment of British businesses. Whereas our continental counterparts sign up to highfalutin declarations with only the vaguest intention of complying with them, we play by the Queensberry rules and regard that as an earnest of our serious intent to get on with the business of proper enforcement and compliance without delay. I do not object to that, but let us not make regulations over-elaborate. Let us not impose a burden that the pubic policy objective does not justify.
What is the lesson of the past three and a half years of the Labour Government? The Home Secretary knows that I admire him personally, but I fear that the Government's record is of hyping policy, raising expectations, failing to deliver and letting people down. Despite the considerable personal qualities of the right hon. Gentleman, his performance as Hon to Secretary has confirmed that general drift. The Government make great claims for what they are going to achieve and encourage people to believe that major progress will be realised, but then fail to match reality to rhetoric and people end up feeling deflated. At best, people think, "Oh, is that all that came of all the good intent and fine words?" At worst, they feel bitterly betrayed and let down by the inadequacy of the Government's performance.
My advice to Ministers is to be honest and realistic and not to over-hype the measure and make out that it is going to make dramatic strides towards the achievement of the target of a 30 per cent. reduction in vehicle crime by 2004. It is unlikely to do so. As the European secure vehicle alliance put it:
There is little evidence that this proposed legislation will make an immediate impact on organised vehicle crime but it must be the intention of all parties to create the climate whereby we increase the risk of detection of organised vehicle crime.
Ministers should not give the wrong impression. They sometimes like to create an image of themselves rushing to the rescue. Previously, we all quaked in our boots and shivered in our beds at the prospect of our cars being stolen, or of objects being taken from them, but now we need no longer worry, because jumping Jack Flash is at hand. That is an unwise approach for Ministers to take.
It would surely be sensible to be modest about the impact of the Bill, because, as the European secure vehicle alliance stresses, it focuses entirely on the theft of vehicles, but makes no reference to theft from vehicles—the incidence, albeit not the cost of which is much greater. Moreover, the Bill will struggle to reach the statute book before Britain goes to the polls, so Ministers should keep calm and stick to the facts.
I offer Ministers two facts about the attitude of Conservative Members. First, we shall scrutinise the Bill fully and fairly. Secondly, we propose to tackle car crime by restoring the numbers of police, increasing their visibility and instilling fear into the hearts of criminals. Such an approach is the offer of a breath of fresh air after 43 months of miserable failure by the Labour Government.

Mr. Steve McCabe: I begin by declaring a non-pecuniary interest in this matter. I am a vice-chairman of the European secure vehicle alliance—ESVA—to which the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) referred. As the organisation is dedicated to combating vehicle crime, I obviously welcome the Bill and many of the measures that it contains, for which ESVA has campaigned for a number of years.
It is fair to say that this has been a light-hearted and good-humoured debate so far. Over the past hour and 19 minutes, we have witnessed almost the full range of the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary repertoire. Perhaps that is it for the term—I do not know. However, this is a serious matter, and we have to pay attention to its serious elements.
Vehicle crime not only concerns us at a national level but has international implications. It crosses all boundaries and impacts on all people at different levels in society. It is certainly not confined to cars nor, as the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) suggested earlier, to new vehicles. In fact, older vehicles are more likely to be stolen, although there is clearly a market in stealing to order high-performance sports cars and other specialist vehicles, which often end up in former Soviet Union countries such as Russia
Vehicle crime is not confined to motor vehicles. It also covers motor cycles, plant and machinery and quite costly pieces of equipment.

Mr. Fabricant: And farm machinery.

Mr. McCabe: Indeed, it covers farm machinery as well. As vehicle crime has a serious impact on people's

livelihood, we must put it in perspective and treat it seriously. Many of us regard the figures in the explanatory notes to the Bill as an underestimate, but if it is true that 375,000 vehicles were stolen last year, with a recovery rate of around 70 per cent., that means that about 112,000 were not recovered, which in turn means that about 300 vehicles a day were lost and never recovered. So we must treat the matter seriously, however light-hearted the debate.
This is not the kind of problem that we can deal with exclusively through Government measures. The Bill provides measures from the top that can make a difference and tackle some areas with which we are familiar, but we also need measures at the bottom through the community safety partnerships. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) referred to the situation in Plymouth. Measures can be taken at a local level, and I think that a combined approach will have the most useful impact.
The Government have demonstrated that they treat the matter seriously. We should welcome the vehicle crime reduction action team initiative and the Government targets. I was somewhat surprised when the hon. Member for Buckingham suggested that his figures showed that the achievement towards the target had been only 0.5 per cent. I may have misunderstood him, but I think that I am right in saying that the most recent British crime survey shows something like a 15 per cent. reduction between 1997 and 1999.

Mr. Bercow: I am listening with interest and some respect to the hon. Gentleman's contribution. If I may clarify my remarks, I was referring to the change from the period of March 1998–99 to March 1999–2000. I no longer have my speech in front of me, but I think that I said that the figure in March 1998–99 was 1,482,889 and that it had gone down by exactly 7,000 12 months later. That represents a reduction, over that 12-month period, of only 0.5 per cent.—welcome, but modest.

Mr. McCabe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. It demonstrates why we should all support the Bill; if we want to make quicker progress, we need to implement the measures that would enable us to do so. I would have thought that that was self-evident.
We can draw on the example offered by the approach on road safety where there was a 30 per cent. target for the reduction of accidents. Significant progress was made, although the figures dipped during some periods. Two lessons from that approach could be effective in the present case. The first is that such a system works best when there is co-operation among all the parties. The second is that, if there are deficiencies in the system, it is best for the Government to introduce supplementary measures to plug the gaps. It seems to me that we are trying to do that with the Bill.
It is fair to say that, in England and Wales, the rate of vehicle theft is the highest and the rate of recovery the poorest in the developed world. Despite some good operations recently by the West Midlands police, the Birmingham and west midlands area has one of the worst recovery rates in western Europe. From talking to policemen and to my constituents, I know that they are desperately worried about the problem of vehicle crime; they are anxious to see measures to tackle it.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I know his constituency and at least two of his constituents


extremely well. Does he believe that there might be a correlation between the fall in police numbers in the west midlands and the inability of the police to recover stolen vehicles? He will be aware that the West Midlands police force has experienced one of the greatest drops in numbers in England and Wales.

Mr. McCabe: If my information is correct, the figures show a slight drop in vehicle crime in the west midlands, because of the operations that the police have been carrying out. I am not sure whether that necessarily supports the hon. Gentleman's observations. I shall make no comment about the people he knows in Hall Green.
I do have some comments on police operations. Earlier, there was some debate as to whether the Bill would add to the pressures on the police. In my conversations with officers in the west midlands, they admit that vehicle crime operations are labour intensive, but they enjoy undertaking them because of the other crimes and criminal activities that they uncover. The police consider that, although such operations are labour intensive, they have significant benefits because they enable the police to clear up and identify other forms of crime. That is a judgment on the use of police resources.
I welcome measures to develop more rigorous and integrated information systems. That will be of considerable benefit. The hon. Member for Buckingham referred to the Swedish experience. Theft rates in Sweden are only about half those in the UK and there is a much higher clear-up rate—almost 90 per cent. One of the clear reasons for that is the much greater use made in Sweden of integrated information systems, so that, when the police stop a vehicle, they can almost immediately, at the road-side, establish its excise duty, insurance and MOT status as well as the identity of the owner. If anything, we might argue that although the Government have gone some way towards addressing the problems and information gaps in our system, they could have gone much further. Had they looked more closely at the Swedish experience, that aspect of the Bill might have been better.
I strongly support the measures introducing registration and enforcement schemes for the salvage industry and those who deal in number plates. As both the Home Secretary and other hon. Members have said, there is a real problem in this country because it is so easy to produce and acquire number plates. That is clearly a contributory factor in vehicle crime.
It is true that there will be some costs. We heard something about those towards the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Buckingham, and I would be the first to acknowledge that there will be some cost burden. However, we should balance those against the enormous costs associated with vehicle crime, which are estimated to amount to about £3 billion a year.
Everyone is affected. People cannot go to work because their vehicles have been stolen or damaged, vital machinery is taken from contractors, and hire purchase and vehicle rental companies lose their vehicles. In that context, although it is important to guard against the costs of the Bill being too onerous, we must set them against the existing costs to society. Provided that the burden is not excessive, the price will be worth paying.
We should welcome the measures relating to the salvage industry, and acknowledge that they are long overdue. It should no longer be possible for vehicles that have been written off to have their identities swapped with those of stolen vehicles, which can then be put back on the road. We should also try to reduce the market in spare parts, and the sale of goods such as the Home Secretary's stereo.
We should also try to tighten the regulations to ensure that vehicles written off in a smash are not patched up, put back on the market and passed on to some innocent unsuspecting buyer. That would not be directly related to the provisions in the Bill, but the restraining of the salvage industry will have a welcome impact on such activity.
I was a bit surprised to hear people asking whether the police should have the power to enter premises to inspect the register. It would seem strange to give tacit approval to legislation that requires those in the salvage industry to keep a register, yet deny the police the power to gain access to it. That is the worst kind of burden to put on industry, because it would create a register without providing any mechanism whereby the information in it could be used. That would be absurd.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the main concern that I highlighted was the seemingly differential treatment between registered and unregistered operators, to the disadvantage of the former. What is his view of that?

Mr. McCabe: There is a simple answer to that concern. There is an expectation that the police will build up good relationships with registered dealers and will know who is who, so they will be able to work with them in a way that is not intrusive or burdensome. As for unregistered operators, the police, through their intelligence, will now have a clear ready-made target. That is a persuasive argument for the approach being taken, as I hope the hon. Gentleman would agree.
The hon. Member for Buckingham asked whether someone who supplies plates without due diligence will be guilty of supplying counterfeit plates. I should be grateful if the Minister would make that point clear.
The Bill is welcome, so far as it goes. Some things are missing from it and there are areas where we could strengthen it. As at least two or three of my hon. Friends said earlier, it does not cover theft from vehicles, which is a crime of much greater proportions, although the financial sum involved may be less. As we are dealing with vehicle crime, it would be sensible to tackle not only the theft of vehicles, but theft from them. I do not know whether there is scope to study that in Committee, but it would be welcome.
We should wonder why there has not been greater concentration on the industry. We should acknowledge the efforts that it has made in the past few years. The theft of new vehicles has decreased in direct relation to the measures that the industry has taken and such crime would be further reduced if further measures were taken. The introduction of laminated glass for side glazing panels is a simple example. I understand that, at the current rate, it will take 10 years for that to apply to most vehicles. If the industry were required to speed up that introduction, we could make more significant progress and reach the target more quickly.

Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to trouble the hon. Gentleman, but this is an important point. The target of a 30 per cent.


reduction by 2004 is challenging, in the Home Secretary's words. Would he bet on its achievement, and if so, how much?

Mr. McCabe: I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman because I do not gamble. That is why I am a Labour Member of Parliament.
I am surprised that the Bill does not contain measures on the way in which the insurance industry deals with vehicle theft. There are enormously high pay-outs and no restriction on people continuing to make claims. There was some debate earlier about the measures that people should take to protect their property. If people persistently do not take action to protect their property and continue to receive insurance pay-outs, we encourage the notion that such crime is victimless, but we know that everyone pays for it through increased premiums. The Bill could provide the opportunity to oblige individuals to protect their property. If they do not, insurance companies might take that fact into account in determining pay-outs.
An interesting experiment recently took place in Merseyside, where the police and an insurance company worked jointly to recover stolen vehicles. People may be worried about the Bill's impact on the police, but that experiment had the great advantage that the insurance company made money available to the police, so extra resources were available to target vehicle crime. The consequence was a massive increase in recovery and the insurance company gained because the pay-outs were dramatically reduced. We could learn from that example. Perhaps the Bill should include enabling powers to try to encourage that approach in other parts of the country.
The Bill is primarily about trying to reduce the market for stolen vehicles and, therefore, the opportunities for vehicle crime. In that sense, it is inevitable that it is a regulatory Bill, and we cannot object strongly to that fact despite some of the comments that have been made. However, we could take complementary measures that would immensely strengthen the approach to such crime. For example, the European secure vehicle alliance has campaigned for some time on the issue of education. We must try not only to reduce the market for stolen vehicles, but to change people attitude's to vehicles and to the theft of vehicles. That involves our notions of ownership and behaviour.
To some extent, the Government have acknowledged that point in their advertising campaigns. The campaign to reduce crime focused on individual behaviour, but the Government have been reluctant to consider the issue of younger people. We know that, sadly, younger people are over-represented in some crime statistics and in the accident statistics. At present, there does not appear to be a process by which we attempt to educate younger people about responsible driving, safe behaviour and the ownership and security of vehicles.
One complementary measure that the Government could consider would involve the Home Office, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department for Education and Employment working together. They could consider key stage 4 requirements for those youngsters who do not respond to the conventional or standard national curriculum. Such youngsters already opt out and they are in danger of drifting, but we have an opportunity to develop a community safety education model that is designed to complement the other regulatory

work that aims to reduce the market for stolen vehicles. The other side of the equation is to educate the next generation of drivers to be more responsible and to treat driving more seriously.

Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some projects in the voluntary sector, such as the "wheels" project in Hertfordshire and the excellent project in Oxford, concentrate on exactly the point that he is making? They seem to be achieving good results with young people, including those who have had difficulties with the police.

Mr. McCabe: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; he makes my point for me. We already have one or two examples that show how effective such an approach can be. It is complementary to the other measures designed to tackle crime, so it would be helpful if the three Departments could come together to give a further boost to such work and to consider whether something could be done at key stage 4 of the curriculum.
I am conscious that I have spoken for rather longer than I intended and that other Members wish to speak. With that in mind, I conclude my remarks.

Mr. David Chidgey: I listened to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) with great interest. He made several important points. In particular, he confirmed that hon. Members on both sides of the House share concerns about the amount of vehicle crime in this country. It is one of the most pervasive, far-reaching and invidious crimes from which we suffer. According to the analysis of the European secure vehicle alliance, to which the hon. Gentleman referred several times, one in three car owners in England and Wales fear that their vehicle will be stolen. In fact, one in eight vehicles owners had their vehicle stolen last year.
For most people, a car is probably their most expensive purchase after buying their home. For non-home owners, it is certainly the most expensive purchase. Cars are often bought on credit and the period of repayment often stretches up to five years. To have one's vehicle stolen and to go through the misery of trying to obtain its full worth from an insurance company is quite a traumatic experience that should not be underplayed or ignored.
Every day 1,000 cars are stolen in England and Wales. Thirty per cent. are never recovered, and of the 70 per cent. that are recovered more than half are damaged beyond repair. Vehicle crime is a major feature of the criminal statistics. The Home Secretary gave a figure of less than 20 per cent., but some estimates put the figure at more than 20 per cent. However, it is clear that it is a major area of criminal activity.
Vehicle crime takes up a disproportionate amount of the resources of the criminal justice system, crime detection, prosecution and front-line policing. A reduction in vehicle crime might lead to a reduction in the police resources needed to pursue and prosecute offenders.
So far I have referred to recorded crime, but the British crime survey—everyone seems to recognise it as a valuable source of information—suggests that fewer than half the thefts from vehicles are reported to the police, and that fewer than 60 per cent. of reported thefts are recorded by the police. Therefore, only a quarter of thefts from vehicles


enter the statistics of recorded crime. The Bill deals exclusively with the theft of vehicles, but theft from vehicles is a major area of criminal activity that should be tackled with equal vigour. Theft from vehicles accounts for two thirds of all recorded vehicle crime. The work of Joanna Sallybanks and Nerys Thomas provides an important reference point, and I shall return to that point.
Although the Bill is limited in its aspirations, it proposes useful measures aimed at reducing vehicle crime. As other hon. Members have said, the draft Bill was welcomed by many organisations as disparate as, among others, the European secure vehicle alliance, the Automobile Association, the RAC and the Motorcycle Action Group. The industry and those interested in motor vehicles have broadly accepted the Bill, and we certainly welcome it in principle. However, we have some particular concerns that I shall discuss later. I am sure that they will be examined as the Bill goes through the due process. Improvements can be made by amendment. I listened to the Home Secretary and I hope that his remarks referred not just to the spirit of accepting amendments, but to the practice of accepting them. There are many ways in which the Bill can usefully be improved.
The Home Secretary and other hon. Members have referred to the Prime Minister's commitment to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. in five years. That commitment has been described as "challenging" or "frightening", and there has been much argument about how much progress has been made. However, it is clear that we are still a long way from the target and the clock is ticking. There is not much time left.
The Bill is aimed specifically at reducing crime in the ringing of stolen vehicles and breaking them for spare parts. The Home Office estimates that, along with a reduction in insurance fraud, the Bill could reduce vehicle crime by 36,000 vehicles a year. That is an admirable aim, but we have to compare that figure with the fact that 375,000 vehicles are stolen every year. Whatever the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said about his figures, it is a fact that reducing the number of vehicles stolen by 36,000 represents less than 10 per cent. of the vehicles stolen every year. Those are Home Office figures.
The Bill will make no impact on reducing the 130,000 vehicles that are stolen every year and recovered, but wrecked beyond repair. It will have no impact on the more than 700,000 thefts from vehicles every year. Those are recorded thefts, but they represent probably only a quarter of actual thefts from vehicles. To put the Bill in the context of the research carried out by Sallybanks and Thomas and the statistics of the British crime survey, it aims to reduce vehicle crime by about 1.5 per cent. of the total. It is still a good objective, but let us be realistic and admit that the Prime Minister's target is, indeed, challenging.
England and Wales suffer some of the highest vehicle crime rates in the developed world. Other hon. Members have highlighted the fact that we are far in front of many other western countries in that respect. Hardy's work on European vehicle crime shows that the most reliable comparison of the rate of vehicle crime is the rate of theft deducted from the total number of vehicles in the vehicle "parc" in a particular country. It is worth considering

those figures and putting the scale of the problem in context. In England and Wales, the rate of theft is 16 per cent. higher than it is in France, 70 per cent. higher than it is in Italy and nearly four times higher than it is in Germany.
Vehicle crime rates in England and Wales are not universal. There are significant regional variations, but the most important variations are due to demography. The Conservatives seemed to be unsure about what cars were stolen most frequently I can advise them that the highest levels of theft occur from low-income, inner-city estates and in areas with the highest incidence of disorder, and that the highest rates of theft are of lower value, older and less-secure vehicles. The issue of vehicle crime is clearly wider than just preventing the ringing of stolen vehicles or the recycling of stolen vehicle parts.
Although the Bill's aims are welcome, there are wider issues to consider in connection with vehicle crime, such as crime prevention, law enforcement and community policing. A major aspect of vehicle crime is the theft of parts, which is estimated to cost our economy five times as much as vehicle theft. Although the Bill attempts to regulate the trade in second-hand parts, much more needs to be done to prevent their theft.
The hon. Member for Hall Green was right to say that the industry has a responsibility to produce better-designed vehicles and to make parts more secure and more easily traceable. It is common sense to produce a car in which the spare wheel is kept within the main body and not in a tray that is accessible outside the car. It is simple for the design shop to incorporate lockable wheel nuts before a car is produced, and they are a vital aid to ensuring that car wheels are not stolen. I feel for the Home Secretary, who commented on the fate of the audio systems in his car, but surely the technology is available to make them more secure. As the hon. Member for Hall Green said, we should accelerate the introduction of laminated side glazing so that it is a standard feature on all cars. We should not wait another eight years, when we shall hit the end of the 10-year programme.
There is great scope for improving vehicle crime prevention measures. Industry must take the lead, with Government prodding, probing, persuasion and, if necessary, regulation to ensure that such issues take a higher priority in the design of cars. However, the Bill does not address that.

Mr. Heald: I am following carefully what the hon. Gentleman says about the areas from which cars are likely to be stolen. Does he agree that the people most at risk are on low incomes, are unemployed or are single parents? Is it enough simply to say that the manufacturers must find solutions, because many of those people's cars would require retrospective fitting to make them more secure? Where would the money come from for that?

Mr. Chidgey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, which accurately reflect the research by the scientists to whom I referred. I said that in areas where such vehicle crime is prevalent, it is necessary to put more emphasis on crime prevention, law enforcement and community policing, because the crime from which those communities suffer is part of a wider scene of criminality and disorder. We must see such crime in the wider sense of crime prevention, and not just in terms of preventing vehicle theft.
A more significant aspect of vehicle crime prevention is secure parking. That is not addressed in the Bill, but several hon. Members alluded to it. A quarter of all vehicle thefts are from car parks. For the past five years, the AA has been administering secure car park schemes on behalf of the police, but fewer than 700 out of an estimated 10,000 car parks have achieved that secure status.
According to the law, a motorist who buys a ticket and enters a car park is merely paying a licence fee for the space. The car park operator has no duty of care for a car that is parked on his land. Most car park operators do not provide basic security—why should I they when there are queues of motorists at the entrance to most car parks around our major cities? Either the industry must be confronted and made to embrace the secure car parks scheme, or consumer protection legislation must be introduced so that a payment for car parking is a payment for a service, and not just a licence fee to enter the land. Until there is radical change, public car parks will continue to be the honeypot for cat thieves.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments on car parks. In addition, will he consider the fact, which I learned in Oxfordshire, that railway station car parks are traditionally policed by the British Transport police and not the local police? As the British Transport police cannot be in all places at all times and station car parks are not on their patch in the same way as they are for local police does he agree not only that the landlord should take proper responsibility but that there should be a change in policing to ensure that community parking is the responsibility of the community police service, and not people who are rarely there?

Mr. Chidgey: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I agree that we need not only joined-up government, but joined-up policing.
The main thrust of the Bill is aimed at reducing the number of unrecovered stolen vehicles, which is a small proportion of vehicle crime. In that regard, its measures are broadly welcome. However, we need to consider how effective they might be. Some 30 per cent. of stolen cars are not recovered. In proportion to cars that are stolen from the fleet, they are, by definition, practice and statistics, of the highest value. They tend to be top of the range and the police estimate that professional theft of such cars is rising.
About 20 per cent. of uncovered stolen vehicles are in that category, and the number is increasing. Many are stolen to order and, within hours, are crated up whole or stripped into parts and exported to mainland Europe for resale, where they are virtually untraceable. There is no requirement to include full details on shipping documents for container transport. Individual stolen cars can be driven out of the country and are unlikely to be checked. There is clearly a need, which the Bill could address, to consider how we can improve checks and identification at our ports to help to reduce the number of vehicles that are exported by professional thieves.
It is unclear what measures are proposed to reduce crime as the Bill relates to other categories of vehicles. The hon. Member for Hall Green mentioned construction plant and motor cycles. Other hon. Members referred to agricultural equipment, and there is a roaring trade in second-hand caravans that have been stolen from forecourts or drives.
The theft of construction plant involves individual items and vehicles that are often valued at hundreds of thousands of pounds. There is a thriving world market in those expensive and highly valuable items, and professional criminals certainly specialise in their theft and export to that market. The important point is that many of those vehicles are outside the DVLA system, and will not be covered by the Bill's provisions on notification of ownership. They are not necessarily registered as road vehicles.
The most serious issue pertaining to those categories of vehicles is the theft of motor cycles. Car theft is falling, but the theft of motor cycles, scooters and mopeds is soaring, and the RAC Foundation reports that there has been a dramatic 25 per cent. increase in the past 12 months. Statistics show that only 14 per cent. of those bikes will be recovered, which is less than a fifth of the recovery figure for cars. The Association of Chief Police Officers has confirmed that its computer lists more than 80,000 bikes as stolen and not recovered. It believes that most are broken for spares, and estimates that there are already nearly £400 million-worth of black market spares in circulation.
It is essential that the Bill fully addresses the rising rates of motor cycle theft. It is far easier to steal a motor cycle than it is to steal a car; it is a simple matter of loading it into the back of a van and driving off. There is a strong case for crime prevention measures such as the provision of more secure on and off-street parking for motor cycles.
I turn now to the details of the Bill. I am cognisant of the Chair's advice that "Erskine May" requires us to consider the clauses not in detail, but in general, and I shall try to obey that ruling. An important omission from the Bill is any mention of safety. The regulations on rebuilt vehicles and recycled parts concentrate on the provenance of those goods, but it is equally important that they are safe when they are offered for sale. There is a strong case for introducing inspection for fitness of purpose to the regulatory chain.
In the main, we agree with the aims in part I to bring the motor salvage industry within the framework of statutory regulation. It is important to reduce opportunities for disposing of stolen vehicles and to assist the police in their investigation of those offences. The majority of salvage operators are extremely responsible and law-abiding citizens who run properly regulated companies, but it is important to eliminate opportunities for the minority to give stolen vehicles the identities of legitimate vehicles that have been written off or seriously damaged. It is important to eliminate opportunities for them to break stolen vehicles and use their component parts for repairs or for resale to the second-hand market and fraudulently to report vehicles as stolen to insurance companies and dispose of them through the trade. Many hon. Members have emphasised that point, and those aspects of the Bill are very important.
Concerns have been expressed outside the House that part I is incomplete. The British Motorcyclists Federation has expressed concern that it does not cover situations in which breakers use their legitimate business as a cover to purchase stolen parts from criminals or break stolen vehicles and sell the parts on. It does not cover dealers who buy stolen vehicles along with legitimate second-hand cars so that they can ring the cars or strip them and supply other vehicles with the parts.
I turn now to the role of local authorities as registrars, as it were, of salvage companies. Part I does not supply local authorities with funds to pursue inquiries into the fitness of an applicant for registration, nor does it require them to provide the funds themselves, so there is no statutory requirement for them to give any priority to vehicle theft prevention. It might be only one of the jobs that they have to do, but I should have thought that it was important to have a sense of priority if we are to hit the Prime Minister's target of a 30 per cent. reduction in car crime in five years.
What provisions does the Bill contain for effective liaison with the police? They, more than anyone else, have a strong motive for ensuring that applicants for registration are fit and proper persons. I am sure that the police would welcome the right to express to local authorities their concerns about particular applicants in the area. Part I recognises that some local authorities would welcome statutory guidance on who constitutes a fit and proper person to act as a motor salvage operator, and there is scope for amending the Bill to expand and amplify that guidance.
Part II deals with the regulation of registration plate suppliers. Other hon. Members have compared the Swedish system with that in this country. It is clear that our system is a mess, with 27,000 outlets supplying between 6 million and 7 million plates a year. In Sweden, one supplier produces and distributes registration plates within a carefully regulated system. As the hon. Member for Hall Green said, that allows the police to make immediate roadside checks to ensure that a vehicle is properly taxed and insured and has an MOT.

Mr. Forth: I am curious about whether it is a new Liberal policy that having one supplier is superior to having many. Does that apply in all circumstances, or only in this one, and how far does it rely on the effectiveness of the regulatory regime to deliver value for money and security of supply?

Mr. Chidgey: As always, I am delighted by the right hon. Gentleman's curiosity, but the issue is the regulation of plates to ensure that they are not manufactured and distributed illegally. The supply chain must be audited, whether there is one supplier or several. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that I was merely quoting the example of Sweden. We want to achieve the end result that Sweden achieves, not necessarily to use the same system.
Clearly, the laxity of this country's vehicle document and registration procedures are a major factor contributing to our high rate of non-recovery of stolen vehicles. New registration plates are essential for a "rung" vehicle, and denying them could reduce the number of unrecovered stolen vehicles by as much as a quarter. The Association of British Insurers estimates that the losses through ringing amount to more than £100 million a year.
The regulation of registration plates is clearly long overdue, and we broadly welcome that part of the Bill, provided that it is aimed at vehicle crime prevention. However, we must ask whether it is also aimed at reducing, or monitoring, motor offences in general. That would raise concerns about civil liberties, and we need to know how those would be addressed and overcome.
Part III deals with vehicle licensing and registration. The vehicle crime reduction action team has reported that the most effective way of combating crime, particularly ringing, is to raise the standards of the vehicle registration document, the V5. I support the requirement of proof of identity at the time of issue of the V5, the compulsory transfer of the appropriate part of the V5 when the vehicle is sold, the production of the V5 when applying for a vehicle excise duty licence and the compulsory collection of mileage data. The latter provides an important opportunity to stop what is commonly called "clocking" cars and selling them to an unsuspecting buyer.
Part III also deals with information requirements, allowing the police access to insurance information. I understand that this important measure is intended to enable the police to have access to the motor insurance database, in conjunction with the automatic number plate recognition system, and to help them to detect people without insurance. The cost to the Motor Insurers Bureau of covering and aiding the victims of accidents in which the perpetrator is uninsured is £215 million a year. In addition, the direct cost to insurance companies is at least as much again. That cost is passed on to bona fide policyholders, and we all end up paying £15 to £20 a year extra. There are benefits to be derived from identifying unlicensed and uninsured drivers, and there is widespread support in the industry for improvements. The Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety supports a proposal to link the DVLA database to the police national computer, and I think that it is worth exploring, along with introducing access to other databases. However, we must ensure that the Bill does not fall foul of data protection and civil liberties provisions.
Clause 37 covers the funding of certain magistrates courts' costs relating to the administration of speed and traffic camera cases. Let me make it clear that I and my colleagues welcome the reduction in the number of injuries and accidents that has resulted from the introduction of speed cameras. The measure is an important one that should help to finance the introduction of speed cameras in areas where great need has been proved. However, I do not want speed cameras to proliferate willy-nilly, perhaps with the aim of exploiting the opportunity to raise revenue, rather than reducing the number of accidents. If speed cameras are installed, it is most important that they work. I shall not detain the House with my explanation of the reverse collapse theory of traffic management, but those who know about it will know that a law work; only when it is self-enforcing and it is known to be self-enforcing. It is hopeless to have alongside the road little grey boxes with no cameras inside, because people, who use a route regularly get to know quickly which cameras work. Correctly channelled, we would support raising funds to install cameras that work in places where they are needed.
My final comments relate to the financial effects of the Bill. I find rather strange the calculation of costs to the salvage industry, estimated to be £285,000 a year, of checking the identity of vehicles and recording details. That sum assumes a labour rate of £5 an hour, but most people recognise that today, the cost of labour includes an overhead, which is rarely less than 50 per cent. and is sometimes as much as 100 per cent. Therefore, if a calculation states that £5 an hour is the cost of labour, either it is assumed that salvage operators pay less than the national minimum wage, or a gross error has been


made. The costing exercise at the back of the Bill is riddled with lots of rather broad a estimates—for example, the time for vehicle identification inspections is estimated at between 12 and 18 minutes, a 50 per cent. difference. The figures must be examined and made into a more robust analysis of the real costs to the industry and other financial effects.
Despite the issues that I have raised and our concerns about the opportunity to amend the Bill later to address those issues, Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill and we hope to help to speed its passage.

Mr. David Kidney: I declare a non-pecuniary interest as one who, with the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), co-chairs the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety—PACTS. Later in my speech, I shall focus more on those parts of the Bill that have the potential to improve road safety, but I shall comment first on the provisions that have the potential to help to reduce vehicle crime.
My reading of the explanatory notes leads me to understand that scrap merchants have been registered since at least 1964, but that motor salvage dealers and the sellers of registered number plates are not registered. It strikes me as high time that consistency was established through a registration scheme for all. Vehicle crime accounts for almost one fifth of al1 recorded crime, and the Bill as it stands—several hon. Members have voiced ambitions to extend it—cracks down on three types of vehicle crime: the replacing of written-off cars with stolen ones, or "ringers"; the breaking up of stolen cars and the sale of the parts; and falsely claiming an insurance pay-out for the theft of a car that has, in fact, been disposed of by some other means.
The value of the vehicles involved is high: the Association of British Insurers says that insurance pay-outs for vehicle crime totalled £498 million last year; and the explanatory notes estimate potential savings of as much as £112 million each year. Therefore, in terms of the cost of vehicles and their value to the economy, it is important to crack down on vehicle crime. Other hon. Members have commented on the importance of protecting the public. Vehicles that have been stolen, changed and given a false identity might well be unsafe on the road. Anything we can do to stamp out their use and keep them off the road is a safety gain.
I should give credit to the motor manufacturing industry for its great efforts to make vehicles more secure from theft and removal, and I believe that the Bill will complement their efforts. It will protect all of us from unknowingly buying stolen vehicles and protect legitimate dealers in salvage and number plates from unfair competition that is, quite literally, criminal. In addition, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) said, the costs of our motor insurance should fall.
Information systems have the potential to contribute to the fight against this type of crime. There are five legal requirements to meet before one drives a vehicle on our roads: a driving licence, an insurance policy, an MOT test certificate if applicable, the excise licence and the registration document. A different organisation collects the information relevant to each of those requirements and holds it electronically, but, in most cases, it cannot pool that information with other agencies, nor share it

with them. Another major player in the collection of data about the movement of vehicles and their occupants is the police national computer. The Bill contains a provision to enable the police to have access to the insurance industry's databases, but I would argue that it should be extended to address the broader issue of information exchange between all of the agencies. In any sharing of information that takes place, it is important to protect the individual's reasonable expectations of privacy, but the goal of reducing crime and making our roads safe is worthy.
I should like Ministers to consider the provision of a new time limit for prosecuting offences of taking vehicles. Many offences are dealt with summarily and are subject to a six-month time limit for commencement of prosecution. The justification for extending the time limit in respect of only one offence is that modern investigation techniques and the availability of DNA analysis might result in the police coming upon evidence more than six months after a crime was committed. However, that argument can be used in respect of all other summary offences, and I suspect that the provision is the forerunner to a wider debate on extending time limits generally for summary offences.
Clause 35 is a crime-cutting measure, but I contend that it also relates to road safety. It would allow the police access to motor insurance databases. The Government have been encouraging insurers to form a common database containing details of policyholders—the motor insurers database, or MID. That should help the police to identify those who are driving without insurance. The more police are given responsibility for processing automatic fixed fines, such as those levied when someone is caught speeding on a speed camera, the more helpful it would be to have access to such information during the process of prosecution. In that way, having detected someone committing a speeding offence, for example, the police will have the ability to check whether another offence has been committed, such as driving without insurance. That is important. Over the weekend, a newspaper reported that there are about 80,000 drivers who are not covered by insurance. Some people are doing so because they have not bought insurance for the vehicle that they are using. Others do not have insurance because they cannot obtain it. They may be disqualified by age and should not be driving. Others may be disqualified by a court order. That disqualification may be because their driving record is so bad that they have forfeited the right to drive. Detecting those who have been disqualified is very much an attempt to make our roads safer for those lawfully using them.
Clause 37 is indisputably a road safety measure. It will allow a proportion of speed fines to be recycled for use in increasing the use of speed cameras and traffic light cameras. I drew attention to the contribution that speed cameras make to road safety in an Adjournment debate that I initiated about a year ago. I gave figures for casualty reduction in Staffordshire, and I shall give the latest figures shortly.
The Government responded positively to my Adjournment debate. The Minister announced that they intended to set up a pilot scheme to test giving back to the police and local authorities a proportion of the income collected from fines imposed for speeding. From April, eight authorities have been allowed to use a proportion of speed fines to invest in more cameras. Although it is a


two-year scheme, we have before us suggested primary legislation to enable a national scheme to be established. Is that because the results of the pilot schemes are so obviously successful already?
I understand that over the first six months in Northamptonshire, for example, there has been a 20 per cent. reduction in deaths and injuries, with a fall of 50 per cent. in August alone. I return to the success of Staffordshire, which was an early authority to invest in speed cameras. It started to do so in 1995 and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying into too much detail. He must remember that this is a Second Reading debate.

Mr. Kidney: I need only to show that there is a safety implication in allowing the police to have access to some of the money that comes from fines imposed for speeding. Results in Staffordshire tell us that the number of vehicles travelling at speeds in excess of the fixed penalty level has fallen by 98 per cent. Eighty five percentile speeds, on roads with speed limits of 30 or 40 miles per hour that are monitored by speed cameras, have reduced by between 6 to 40 per cent. Most important of all these statistics, the three-year personal injury records at county sites show a reduction in fatal and serious injuries of 60 per cent., and 24 per cent. for all injuries.
According to the Government's new safety strategy, which is called "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone", speed is a factor in one in three of all collisions. With about 3,400 people dying on our roads every year, it can be seen that reducing excessive and inappropriate speeds can contribute greatly to meeting the Government's new challenging target for reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads by 40 per cent. by 2010. The target is 50 per cent. for children.
Reducing speed is only one element in making roads safer. Education, enforcement, road engineering and careful evaluation all have a role. In Staffordshire, the speed camera strategy is only one part of a comprehensive road safety strategy, and one that has been remarkably successful. Fatal and serious injuries have been cut from 628 in 1994 to 350 last year. We have performed well in Staffordshire to date. The local authority and the police have set themselves a target of meeting the 300 figure that the Government's new targets imply for Staffordshire by 2005 instead of 2010.
I have concentrated on road safety to show that more speed cameras nationally will be a means towards making roads safer. In this way, I hope that I can reassure those who fear that the measure is only a money-raising scheme.
Staffordshire's experience of the finances derived from speed cameras would contradict any critic who talks of a stealth tax. The local authority and the police have invested £2.5 million in speed cameras since 1995. In the same period, the sum of all the fixed-penalty tickets for speeding offences has been £2 million. That money has gone to the Exchequer, but clearly it has not even covered the investment.
A further reassurance can be gained by studying the criteria by which we decide on where to site speed cameras in Staffordshire. An assessment is made that is based on a points system. Points are awarded for various

factors, including the number of collisions involving personal injury, the severity of the injuries and the volume of traffic.
To keep the public's confidence, the message must be that more speed cameras are intended to make our roads safer, not to raise more money. The message will be reinforced by expressly indicating that the siting of new speed cameras will be in accordance with objective criteria.
There is a financial benefit to the public purse in introducing more speed cameras, and one that we should publicise widely. Fewer fatal and serious injuries mean less expenditure to deal with the aftermath, fewer attendances by emergency services at the scene, less use of stretched health services and reduced social security payments. The Government estimate that the cost of one fatality on our roads is about £1 million. For a serious injury, the cost is about £100,000. Little wonder that Staffordshire reports a first year economic rate of return on its investment in speed cameras of 1,200 per cent.
The answer to the allegation of a stealth tax is that the true purpose and effect of using speed cameras and traffic light cameras more widely is to reduce law-breaking and to reduce deaths and serious injuries on our roads. The overall objectives of the Bill—reducing vehicle crime and road casualties—should be welcomed by everyone.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has returned to his place. His contribution from the Opposition Front Bench was the usual pessimistic and, at times, pedantic perambulation.

Mr. Bercow: I am content to plead guilty to the charge of pessimism. Will the hon. Lady now, without further ado, give me one example of pedantry?

Mrs. Gilroy: I would prefer to make progress to relieve the pessimistic mood in which the hon. Gentleman left the Chamber. I hope to show that there is every reason to be optimistic about the Bill and that some of his worst fears will not come to light.
In contrast, the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary were restrained and responsible in referring to some of the tools that are essential for places such as Plymouth, which have been able to bear down significantly on car crime generally and on the theft of motor vehicles, about which the hon. Gentleman made a great deal. Places such as Plymouth, which have a significant track record, especially need the proposals that are set out in the Bill to continue to bear down on car crime.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to the reduction of 17 per cent. in vehicle crime nationally since the election, and that achievement is even more marked in Plymouth, where we have been fortunate in being able to build on six years of partnership between the police, the council it and the community to reduce crime and improve community safety. The Plymouth community safety partnership was set up during the time of a Labour-led council, and more than 100 partners have contributed to the success of the crime reduction strategy in Plymouth.
From the beginning, auto crime has been one of the key elements of that strategy. That is hardly surprising. Even with the lower level of vehicle crime in Plymouth, it represents almost one in four of all reported crimes. The success of the strategy in Plymouth has resulted in a fall from the initial audit level in 1994–95, the year before the partnership came into being, of 2,555 crimes—that is, theft of vehicles—to 1,300 in the past full year. That is a reduction of 50 per cent. in theft of vehicles. Car crime as a whole fell by 50 per cent. in the first three years and is approaching 70 to 80 per cent. for the whole period.
Plymouth's success is all the more remarkable when one considers the difficult background against which the partnership emerged. According to the 1995 index of local conditions, the St. Peter ward in Plymouth, Sutton was the poorest ward in England, with high unemployment. However, education, employment and health action zones have enabled us to pull together to address that effectively. The city now has unemployment at the national average for the first time in 20 years. Unemployment has plummeted from 12,000 to fewer than 4,000, and a further 2,000 people who were not even registered as unemployed are now in work.
Over the first three years of the community safety partnership, theft of vehicles fell by 29 per cent., and in the three years from the year of the election, such offences fell by a further 29 per cent. They have continued to fall but, naturally, after such successes, it becomes much more difficult to see significant results. A figure of 1,300 car crimes in Plymouth is still too many. Despite some success in prosecuting some of the individuals responsible for substantial amounts of such crime—

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Can she help us by saying what impact closed circuit television has had in the change that she describes, and tell us when it was introduced?

Mrs. Gilroy: Yes. I am happy to admit that CCTV has had some impact, but the greater impact has come from the people involved in the community safety partnership—the 100 partners from neighbourhood watch schemes and others, which I may mention if time permits.
The Bill will help us by making it much more difficult to profit from car theft, by licensing those involved in the salvage industry and controlling the supply of number plates. Both proposals will reduce the opportunities for criminals to disguise the identity of stolen cars, by preventing criminals from swapping the identity of a vehicle that they have stolen with that of a written-off or scrapped vehicle. They will take the profit out of stealing cars.
The Bill will also help to prevent unsuspecting purchasers from buying stolen cars, which in turn will bring benefits to the vehicle insurance industry and its customers. It will back up the work that the vehicle insurance industry is undertaking to develop the motor insurers database to prevent uninsured driving which, we know, costs each policyholder about £20 a year and the insurance industry more than £400 million.
I hope that the Bill will also help the work of trading standards officers. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) highlighted some interesting points. Some of the most difficult cases with which trading standards officers have had to deal entail spotting cut and shut

vehicles before they become a problem, with huge safety implications for consumers, whom their service aims to protect. The ownership of stolen vehicles has always been a problem for purchasers who find that they have paid a significant sum for something that turns out to belong to someone else. I hope that we will draw on the long experience of trading standards officers in such matters, to ensure that safety, title to property and car clocking are dealt with more effectively in future.
Re-investing money from speed camera enforcement in road safety will be popular with many of my constituents. We have in Plymouth one of 20 pilot home zones, and I know that all over the country there is huge demand for effective traffic calming, including the use of more speed cameras. Like many hon. Members, I have had to explain to too many constituents who fear for their own and their children's safety that speed cameras are not available for all the circumstances that might merit their use. The most recent discussion that I have had about that was at this time last week, when I was speaking to some young members of the Efford youth club. One of them asked me what we could do to stop speeding motorists like the one who had recently knocked down and injured his cousin.
I understand that the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), visited my constituency on Friday. I am delighted that she did so, and especially that she visited the St. Peter ward, which I mentioned earlier. I understand that she visited the Millfields police station, which was opened after a campaign in that community supported by local residents, their Labour councillors and myself, and which received a positive response from our then local chief inspector of police, Mr. Russ Mitchell.
I am delighted that the right hon. Lady viewed that important project, which has brought local policing back to an area that is still among the poorest in the country. I am only sorry that I did not know in advance about her visit. Perhaps hon. Members on the Conservative Benches will bring to her attention my remarks about aspects of vehicle crime and how we are tackling it in Plymouth, which I would have been delighted to show her.
For although the lives of my constituents are still spoiled by levels of deprivation and crime—including vehicle crime—that are far too high, the right hon. Lady could not have chosen a better constituency or ward to see how things are at last turning round, and how our policies are working to improve people's lives and give them back the feeling that they have some control over their quality of life.
The local community is working on a neighbourhood compact. The ward will get five more police with the extra funding from the crime-fighting fund and the Devon and Cornwall police budget, which will help to combat vehicle crime, using the new measures. The statistics for the eight months to October this year show an overall 8 per cent. reduction in crime in that ward, and 13 per cent. in Plymouth as a whole.
The impressive reduction in car crime in Plymouth is the more remarkable because it occurred against the background of deep-seated poverty, which was getting worse when we were elected in 1997. The people of Stonehouse showed early determination to deal with that appalling Tory legacy. The successful campaign to re-open a police station in the area was one early result. The work with an adjacent ward of Sutton produced some


remarkably successful projects to tackle vehicle crime. The significant reduction of some 50 per cent. in car crime over the period could not have happened without such initiatives.
If I were to pick out a project that illustrates why Plymouth has been so successful, I would suggest Treads, a training programme in which more than 500 young people have participated this year. It makes a special contribution to working with those who have a history of involvement in auto crime. The partnership is led by the Devon Youth Association and involves Plymouth city council and the Devon and Cornwall constabulary. Young people are referred to the programme by the youth offending team, and they learn responsible driving and car mechanics. The programme has Open College Federation accreditation.
Just last week, two young people from North Prospect received a Crimebeat award of several hundred pounds for a project to build a car from a kit. The award was made in the presence of Major Ranulph Rayner, Devon's high sheriff, who is backing such Crimebeat initiatives during his term of office, and Sir John Evans, our chief constable.
In addition to showing the right hon. Member for Maidstone and the Weald that excellent project, I would have shared with her my concern about the car park at the rear of the Theatre Royal.
In May this year, the Tories took control of the council [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, it is not "hear, hear", as far as we are concerned. Since May, there have been several worrying signs that the Tories do not fully understand the importance of putting time and money into the partnership work for which Plymouth has become well known. In the case of the crime partnership, they have cut the council's contribution to the youth offending team. Personally, I should have thought that that would be one of the last things that one would think of cutting. Even less would one expect the Tories to cut car parking charges within weeks or almost days of taking office. In fact, they did not just cut them, but abolished them on evenings and Sundays.
The car park that I am concerned about is inspected by patrols, which see whether cars have tickets. In doing so, those patrols provide a degree of security against theft from, and of, cars. The Tories say that they will maintain the patrols, but there are signs that crime in the car park is going up. The police have introduced dog patrols since December, which may help for the time being and over Christmas.
The idea is to create a partnership. The Tories on Plymouth city council, however, seem to think that people who can afford to come in and pay £20 for a theatre ticket and, often, have a meal out as well—but who do not even pay our community charge—cannot afford to contribute to the cost of car parking and security for their own cars.

Mr. Heald: I followed with great interest the hon. Lady's comments on Treads, which is the sort of scheme that I mentioned earlier. However, I do not understand what she is saying about the Conservative group on Plymouth council. From what she is saying, it has not only cut car parking charges, but is continuing the checks made on vehicles in car parks. Dog patrols have also been

introduced. Surely, that is an improvement. I am sure that local residents quite like not having to pay car parking charges.

Mrs. Gilroy: Those people are not local residents, as they come from outside Plymouth. Plymouth city council is losing £400,000 in income this year, and would lose £800,000 in a full year. That could be used for better things and for work under the community safety partnership.

Mr. Heald: It is a tax cut.

Mrs. Gilroy: It is not a tax cut, but a cut in the funding for fighting crime. It is a public services funding cut by stealth.

Angela Smith: A stealth cut.

Mrs. Gilroy: Indeed, it is a stealth cut. In my constituency, the Tories will have to make stealth cuts such as that, and, in the city of Plymouth, cuts amounting to £55 million to meet their £16 billion pledge of cuts.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. For a little while, the hon. Lady has been straying rather too far from the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mrs. Gilroy: I take your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gilroy: I think that I might be tempted down another path along which I ought not to be tempted, so I shall not give way at this stage.
I urge my hon. Friends and the Home Secretary to try to ensure that Opposition Members understand that all the initiatives that I have described work together. I have tried to highlight the point at which successful community safety partnerships have apparently achieved as much as they can. While other types of crime are going down, the one that is showing signs of edging up again by a percentage point or two is vehicle crime, especially theft of vehicles. As we have reached that point, the Bill provides useful tools, which are not currently available, to plug the gaps. As we discussed earlier, those tools make far better use of the time of the police and other enforcement agencies. That ensures that their time is used in the best possible way so that they can tackle car crime, violent crime and other sorts of crime.
As we are discussing vehicle crime, when my hon. Friend the Minister comes to sum up, will he consider whether he could add a clause or two to the Bill to control the Tories' wish to drive a coach and horses through our partnership work? My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) referred to clauses perhaps being added for protection. I am not sure whether he meant that bandwagons should be protected, but they certainly should be protected from Tories who are constantly leaping on them, thus proving to be a great danger to themselves and other people.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Until those particular bandwagons need registration plates, the hon. Lady is out of order.

Mrs. Gilroy: The bandwagons to which I was referring are particularly badly maintained as they keep backfiring


loudly, frightening Opposition Members rather more than they frighten anyone else. Seriously, however, I have real fears for partnership work and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary can find a means of enabling Opposition Members to get their heads around the need to tackle the issue of auto crime from both non-legislative and legislative angles; otherwise, I fear that the measure's great potential to bear down on vehicle crime in Plymouth and elsewhere will be neutralised—or, indeed, worse. That would be dispiriting for all those involved in working together in community organisations in the city and throughout the county of Devon, as well as those in the community safety partnership team. I know that my right hon. Friend understands those things, and I hope that he will try to educate the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, who speaks for the Opposition.
Plymouth's community safety partnership has matured and developed over a longer period than most crime and disorder partnerships. As other partnerships have a chance to develop and achieve similar successes to Plymouth's—which they ought to be able to achieve faster once we introduce the Bill's provisions—they will find that those new tools are essential.

Mr. Bercow: I have been listening to the hon. Lady with no little interest. She will be aware that the largest two parts of this four-part Bill concern the regulation of motor salvage operators and number plate suppliers. In order that the House can get a feel for the significance of the Bill's regulatory impact in the hon. Lady's constituency, will she say approximately how many motor salvage operators and plate suppliers there are in Plymouth, Sutton?

Mrs. Gilroy: I am reliably advised that there are about five. As we discussed earlier, it will not be necessary for the enforcement agencies to focus on all of them. As the hon. Gentleman himself has pointed out, many of those in the salvage industry make a highly respected contribution to the local economy. As with all trading standards issues, they have as much to gain as anybody else from the proper regulation of their trade, which will safeguard their reputation.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Buckingham said that it was important to have enough police to make good use of the provisions in the Bill. As I indicated, I believe that, throughout the country, there are now 400 community safety-type partnerships under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. They have been in existence for only a year or two but, in Plymouth's case, we have been working on the issues for six years. I was making the point that police time would be freed up to be used in a better way if legislation were clarified and the police could enforce things far more quickly.
The Bill's contents are extremely important to all of those who take auto crime seriously. I referred to Tory bandwagons and coaches and horses. I hope that, in five to 10 years' time, those will be the only vehicle crimes still causing problems. Who knows? With appropriate amendments in Committee, we, might even have eliminated them.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I have been following the debate with considerable interest. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) made an

interesting point; she thought that it was wrong that a council under Conservative control should cut taxes, yet provide additional services. She then showed a complete incomprehension of local business men in her area, by saying that the worst thing was that 14,000 people from outside the constituency came into her city to shop. How wrong that is.

Mrs. Gilroy: Not only is Plymouth city council reducing the youth offending team budget—one of the last budgets that should be cut—but it is also closing old people's homes. Those are not my priorities or those of the people of Plymouth.

Mr. Fabricant: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, I would ask him to return to the Bill.

Mr. Fabricant: I accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and shall not discuss the sad position of the people of Plymouth, Sutton with their Member of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) waxed lyrical about the number of speed cameras in Staffordshire, but not once did he speak about the appalling loss by Staffordshire of 240 police officers. He mentioned his consultation with the chief constable's department, but he did not say how difficult it would be to enforce the Bill without sufficient police numbers.
Such a Bill is needed, however. As we heard earlier, the British crime survey said that 2,956,000 thefts occurred in 1999, representing about 20 per cent. of all British crime. Slightly more than one in 10—or 11 per cent.—of those crimes were thefts of vehicles. We are discussing these matters hot on the heels of the Queen's Speech, in which we heard about another Home Office initiative to control yob culture in our streets. How can that aim be achieved without the police officers necessary for enforcement?
As we heard earlier, the 18 December issue of The House Magazine contains an article entitled "Policing in Crisis" by the chairman of the Police Federation. It is worth repeating two lines of the article that are directly relevant to the Bill:
There's a huge suspicion and a powerful sense of unease in the police service … Morale is the worst I have ever seen it.
I remind hon. Members that those are the words of Fred Broughton, chairman of the Police Federation. Although we all welcome the Bill, we must ask how it will be enforced.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was alarming to hear the Home Secretary accuse, to all intents and purposes, the chairman of the Police Federation of crying wolf?

Mr. Fabricant: Very few things shock me in this life nowadays. Having just had my 50th birthday, I have seen many things. However, it is frightening to hear a Home Secretary say that the comments of the chairman of the Police Federation are pointless and useless, and that he cries wolf and makes similar statements every six months. I shall not pursue the matter in detail, because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order. I point out, however, that the Home's Secretary's remarks are especially


alarming as, according to the article, the Police Federation is making its first ever call for the establishment of a royal commission to consider the future of policing in this country.
I can forgive the Home Secretary, as he said that he had not read this most serious article in The House Magazine, but I hope that my raising the issue again will ensure that he reads it. No matter what the right hon. Gentleman says, no sensible person would doubt that police officers will be needed to enforce the Bill. We all welcome the legislation, providing that the Home Office supplies resources for the police officers who are necessary to enforce it.

Mrs. Gilroy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fabricant: Of course I shall give way to the charming hon. Lady.

Mrs. Gilroy: I thank the kind hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that the police training schools are full to overflowing, to the extent that it has been necessary to open a new facility? When did such circumstances exist under the previous Conservative Government?

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady knows that record numbers of officers are leaving the police force and that the numbers are higher now than they ever were during 18 years of Conservative government.

Mrs. Gilroy: indicated dissent.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Lady then quote the relevant figures?

Mrs. Gilroy: I welcome the opportunity of pursuing a point that I cut short in my speech. I did so because I was afraid that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might stop me continuing. In Plymouth, there will be 41 extra police officers, of whom I have seen some of the early recruits. I imagine that the shadow Home Secretary was told when she visited the St. Peter ward on Monday that five of the officers would be located there.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) to pursue that point, but we have now had enough background remarks on the number of policemen. I ask the hon. Gentleman to return to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Fabricant: I shall not speak further about police officer numbers. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady laughs from a sedentary position, but I make that comment only because I am obeying your correct instruction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It is, however, worth setting out a little background. Interestingly, 12.6 per cent. of vehicle-owning households have been victims of car crime at least once. Of those households, 8.1 per cent. suffered thefts from their vehicles and 3.7 per cent. suffered attempted thefts. For those who belittle attempted thefts, I point out that such thefts often involve damage to the car, whether it is

caused by smashing side windows, forcing boots or breaking locks. Anyone who has been a victim of such crime knows that it involves considerable cost, either directly, through payment to avoid loss of a no-claims bonus, or indirectly, through the loss of such a bonus.
I have never been a victim—I touch the wood of the Bench in front of me when making this comment—of vehicle crime in this country. In the past three years, however, I have suffered it twice in France. That will be almost my only Euro-sceptic remark this evening. I may be tempted to say a bit more when we discuss provisions on the production of licence plates.
People who have suffered crime feel not only that they have lost something tangible, but that they have been emotionally affected. That is understandable, but revealingly, the British crime survey states that 89 per cent. of victims reported anger. Again, that is understandable; indeed, I am surprised that only 89 per cent of people felt anger. However, only 22 per cent. of people whose cars were broken into or stolen reported shock. We should consider that figure for a moment, as it demonstrates what this country has come to. The statement that only 22 per cent. of victims were shocked implies that 78 per cent. of them expected the crimes to occur.

Mr. McCabe: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that might be the case because people were conditioned during 18 years under the previous Administration to expect soaring vehicle crime, cuts in police numbers and other law and order failures?

Mr. Fabricant: Police officer numbers increased under the previous Government and vehicle crime fell by 27 per cent. In the past three years, however, such crime has fallen only by 2 per cent. That is why I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman, whose remarks are not logical. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, the Government build up an exciting picture of what will happen, only to disappoint people later. That happens because adequate resources are not being made available.

Mr. Forth: Before my hon. Friend leaves the matter of expectation, disappointment and rage, does he have any figures on the regional and rural/urban breakdown of the incidence of such events? Those blanket figures are informative, and I am grateful to him for bringing them to the attention of the House, but must not we be much more aware of the enormous variations—between one area or region and another and among different parts of our communities—that underlie those figures and the bearing that they must have on policy making and direction of resources?

Mr. Fabricant: Sadly, I do not have the figures, but my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask that question. I hope that the Minister, who is listening to the debate keenly, will be able to report some of those variations in his winding-up speech.

Mrs. Gilroy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fabricant: In a moment. I will say that the hon. Lady is a marvellous advocate for her constituency, or at least tries to be.
We may find that there is a variation between urban and rural areas. For too long, the Government have underestimated the amount of rural crime throughout the United Kingdom. I believe that the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham. Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) has more vehicle crime than other parts of the west midlands, though I would be the last person to blame the sitting Member for that.

Mrs. Gilroy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fabricant: I give way to the hon. Lady for the final time.

Mrs. Gilroy: On that point, I have a specific example. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be extremely pleased to hear that there were a mere 15 thefts of motor vehicles in a ward in the constituency of his colleague, the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), in the seven months from April to October 2000. However, there were 73 such thefts in the inner-city ward of St. Peter, to which I have referred. That shows the stark contrast between rich and poor areas and between the leafy suburb and the inner city. No doubt the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) represents an area akin to the leafy suburb.

Mr. Fabricant: I thank the hon. Lady for her helpful intervention, which shows that there huge differences not only in regions or between urban and rural areas, but in small regions. However, I do lot represent only the leafy lanes of Lichfield—far, far from it. My constituency lost Stone because of a boundary change, but has gained the small ex-mining town of Burntwood, which is slightly larger than Lichfield and was Labour controlled. All I can say is that that shows that I am a Member of the House because of the loyalty of the people of Lichfield.
I am interested not only in the number of cars that have been stolen or broken into, but in the rather startling difference in the recovery rate for stolen vehicles, which I find disturbing. Again, I have to ask whether the figures arise directly from the lack of police officers in Staffordshire, the west midlands and elsewhere. In particular, two figures stand in stark contrast: 63 per cent. of all stolen vehicles were recovered in 1997, but after just three years of Labour government, that has fallen to 58 per cent. The sad fact that we face is that that directly mirrors the fall in the number of police officers. Vehicle crime fell by 27 per cent. under the previous Government, but over the past few years there has been a decrease of only 2 or 3 per cent., which is appaillingly low.
Although we welcome the Bill, the key fact is that we need extra police officers to ensure that its provisions are observed. Police constables—not local council employees, as the Home Secretary suggested—will have the right to enter certain premises, but to facilitate that, constables on the ground must be available. That means either providing extra constables or constables entering such premises instead of doing other jobs. It is facile of the Home Secretary and others to say that constables could perform such functions in the normal course of their duties.

Mr. Forth: Does not my hon. Friend think it slightly bizarre that the Bill, which is supposed to be an anti-crime measure, allows and by implication encourages the entry

by constables and others of registered premises, although it says nothing about premises from which criminal activities are being pursued? Is it not perverse that the heavy boots of Mr. Plod will enter premises that are already registered and therefore known to the authorities and that, by implication, there are not enough resources for the police to root out those operating from unregistered premises?

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend raises a fascinating point, although I have not read the Bill closely enough to deal with it. Perhaps the Minister will address it in his winding-up speech. Are police officers expressly forbidden—explicitly or by implication—to enter non-registered premises? By definition, registered premises will be those of law-abiding people who have registered, whereas those who break the law will not register.

Mr. McCabe: There is a slight danger that Conservative Members have been so programmed on their script about police numbers that they have missed the point of the Bill. That is a serious omission. I put a simple question to the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree with Chief Superintendent Mike McAndrew, the Metropolitan police operational command unit commander and a member of the national executive of the Police Superintendents Association, who said:
The Police Superintendents' Association … welcomes the proposals …
The proposed measures illustrate our view that this is not a job for police alone. The involvement of local authorities in the regulation of the motor salvage industry and improvements in vehicle licensing and registration will provide much needed backing for prevention and detection activity by the police service …?
Is not that the whole point of the Bill and have not he and his colleagues missed it?

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening to what I have said. We welcome the Bill, and I certainly welcome the statement made by the representative of the superintendents, but the hon. Gentleman himself said that the job is not for police officers alone. As was said during a previous American presidential election, "read my lips": there are 3,000 fewer police officers than in 1997. Until those numbers are restored, how can such legislation be successfully introduced? I shall not vote against the Bill, but how can it be effectively enforced?

Mr. Robert Syms: The Bill will allow an officer to enter premises without a warrant, but is not that insidious, dangerous and part of a trend? The Transport Act 2000 deals with congestion charging and workplace parking and also gives powers for individuals to enter private property to carry out certain functions. Does not that represent a slippery slope?

Mr. Fabricant: That could be a slippery slope, but I shall not go into detail, as that would be completely out of order. However, I have been involved in scrutinising private legislation—the Kent County Council and Medway Council Bills—under which Kent county council and Medway council are asking for similar powers for police officers to enter registered premises dealing with second-hand goods. Hon. Members have discussed those very issues and whether it would be right for the police to have such powers. That question, however, must be balanced against the attempt to prevent crime.

Mr. Bercow: Nothing said by the hon. Member for Hall Green detracts from the point that we Conservatives


have been making, which, as my hon. Friend knows, relates to the nature, extent and differing application of police powers. Does my hon. Friend share my understanding that the police will require a warrant to inspect unregistered premises, but will require no such warrant to inspect their registered counterparts?

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Bill clearly states that registered premises require a police officer only to visit and inspect, and that no warrant will be required. What worries me is the presence of an imbalance almost favouring those who act unlawfully, rather than those who carry out their business lawfully.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have been following my hon. Friend's argument, as well as the interventions that have come thick and fast. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether council employees—who, I gather, may be involved in these matters—will have to be accompanied by a police officer, or can themselves enter a registered property without a warrant, or an unregistered property with a warrant? I am interested in this, because I share the fear expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) that we are beginning to live in a rather dangerous state.

Mr. Fabricant: While my hon. Friend asked his question, I was looking feverishly through the Bill. I am well aware that on Second Reading we should not go into the details of individual clauses, but I think it worth mentioning, in the context of principle, that clause 9(1) states:
A constable may at any reasonable time enter and inspect premises for the time being entered in the register of a local authority.
The subsection goes on to cite certain premises, such as those occupied as a motor salvage yard. I think it implies that the constable would have to be a police officer, and that no one could enter the premises without a police officer being present.
I see no reference in clause 9—here I return to the subject of police numbers—to local authority officers entering the premises. Those who enter can only be police officers, which can only result in a demand on police officers' time and resources. If that takes police officers away from the beat—if it stops police officers preventing hideous crimes like those we have witnessed over the past few weeks—it must be wrong. It is the presence of police officers on the beat, and on housing estates, that prevents crime. I do not know how anyone can seriously argue against common sense like that.

Mr. Heald: According to the Motor Vehicle Demolishers Association, the absence of effective enforcement of registration could penalise the honest, hard-working demolisher. Others who did not register would be able to go about their business while breaking all the laws under the sun. Is it not important for registration to be enforced properly—and, if that is to be done, do we not need the officers to do it?

Mr. Fabricant: What my hon. Friend says is self-evident. Without such enforcement, there will be no disincentive to prevent dishonest people from registering. By their nature, if they think they can get away with it,

they will. As my hon. Friend says, police officers—or at least the threat of a check by them—will be needed to make dishonest people register and thus, presumably, become honest.
A few details in the Bill worry me. It says, for instance, that local authorities will have discretion in the levying of a fee for the processing of applications by demolishers. I thought that the more technical term was "motor salvage operators", but—as a chartered engineer—I will not get on to my favourite subject and start talking about the fact that people call themselves engineers when they are really technicians, because they want to give themselves a grand name. My point is this: if local authorities are to have discretion in the levying of fees for the processing of applications, I wonder whether fees will vary from authority to authority.
I can envisage the hon. Member for Plymouth. Sutton arguing that the fees should be very high. She does not argue in favour of stealth taxes, because she thinks that taxes should be obvious in her constituency. She spoke earlier about parking charges. I can well imagine her standing up—if she were a local councillor, which she is not—and arguing that registration charges in her area should be high. As she said earlier, they would pay for old-age homes. In fact, the money would go into two separate funds.

Mrs. Gilroy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fabricant: I would be churlish if I did not.

Mrs. Gilroy: I have never been a councillor, but as a Member of Parliament I have a very good relationship with my local branch of the Federation of Small Businesses. I think it would be very alarmed to hear that I had advanced such arguments, and I hotly deny having done so.

Mr. Fabricant: At least we have one thing in common: neither of us has been a local councillor.

Mr. Heald: I misread my notes earlier: I should have referred to the Motor Vehicle Dismantlers Association. I apologise to the House.
The Federation of Small Businesses has made clear its view that small businesses should be exempt from requirements to register, and from the regulation for which the Bill provides. Does my hon. Friend agree with that, and did he hear the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) say she supported it?

Mr. Fabricant: No, I did not. No doubt, if there is a vote, she will vote to ensure that small businesses are brought into the ambit, or orbit, of the Bill.
I am worried about the apparent absence of a right of appeal. Salvage operators are obliged to register. In some circumstances a local authority may remove someone from the register, or may feel that someone working on the fringes of the business should be on the register. I do not think there is currently a right of appeal if an authority decides that someone ought to have been registered, or will be taken off the register. I hope the Minister will tell us whether there will be a right of appeal, or, if there will be none in the Bill,. whether he will accept amendments in Committee allowing a procedure for people to appeal if they have to.
Part II deals with the regulation of registration suppliers. Like the Home Secretary, I am surprised by how easy it is to go into Halfords or any other shop and ask for a licence plate to be made. It is only necessary to specify a licence plate number: there seems to be no check on whether you own a car with that licence.
I have a particular irritation in life. Now that I am forced on to the road and am no longer able to take a train to Lichfield—there do not seem to be any trains from Lichfield to Trent Valley station any more—I see cars on the motorway with licence plates in italics, barely legible. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham—who has drifted from the Front Bench to the Back Bench, and is now drifting back—told me that he welcomed choice and variety.

Mr. Bercow: Diversity.

Mr. Fabricant: I too welcome diversity, up to a point.
I do not know whether the Minister will talk about the latest licence plate recognition technology using mobile cameras. It will be a marvellous new and important innovation when it is introduced into this country. It will enable a police officer anywhere in the country to enter the licence plate of a stolen or wanted vehicle. If a car with that licence plate drives past the mobile camera, wherever it may be, it will automatically be read by a computer and flagged up, so that the police will know where that particular car is.
The question is: will the cameras recognise all sorts of licence plates? Will the registration always have to be in sanserif script, of which I spoke earlier?

Mr. Forth: I am fascinated by that analysis of a matter that is relevant to the Bill and to the licence plate regime that is proposed. Is my hon. Friend not worried, as I tend to be, about the possible effect on that technology of either stray dirt, or a strategically placed item to change the nature of a letter or a number, which is prevalent, as he will know? How confident can we be that the technology, in which I know he places great faith, will be able to produce accurate and not misleading information on vehicle registration plates?

Mr. Fabricant: We can never be confident of that. A machine will always be a machine and will never be able to think in quite the way we think, although some people might say, "Thank God for that." Nevertheless, it is important that we try to standardise to some degree licence plates to ensure that they are readable—if nothing else, by police officers from a distance when they are following in a police car.
We heard a eulogy for speed cameras from the hon. Member for Stafford. He would wish to see them in every street, every lane and every village of Staffordshire, let alone the rest of the country.

Mr. Kidney: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he is misrepresenting the speech that I made in this very Chamber on this very day, and that it is important that speed cameras are in areas where they will reduce casualties? We should not put them in every street in the country.

Mr. Fabricant: I am greatly relieved to hear that, but what a shame that we did not hear about how there are so

few police officers in Staffordshire to arrest the people who have gone over the speed limit and then do not pay their fine.
There needs to be a register of those who supply registration plates to ensure that they supply plates to people who own the cars with that particular registration. That makes good sense. The register will be held centrally by the Secretary of State—by the Home Secretary presumably, although I am not sure. Will it be held by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions? Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State can clarify that.
The Secretary of State will have discretion to levy a fee to cover "all reasonable costs incurred". What does that mean? What if I am not Halfords plc, but a small dealer in auto spares who also makes money by making licence plates? How much will I have to pay to be registered with the Secretary of State? Is another burden on small businesses being imposed by the Government?
How easy will it be for me to register? How will I get the form? Will it be available on the internet? Three years ago, the Government boasted that, within two years, we would have internet-based government, where every form could be downloaded. Nothing has happened—it is another broken promise. What burden will there be on small businesses to register? We need the details. The small business man needs the detail.

Mr. Syms: My hon. Friend is developing an argument about information and processing information. Under clause 35, it is clear that the Government wish the insurance industry database to be made available to the police. There may be good reasons why that should be so, but there is an issue of data protection. I served on the Committee that considered the Data Protection Bill, which was based on a European directive. Is there not a danger that the Government will have to go to Europe to get a derogation to allow the database to be available to the police?

Mr. Fabricant: That comes under the new police powers, which I will go into later, but, again, there is the problem of intrusion into people's private lives. It is a question of balance. I will not condemn it outright. There must be some control over the activities of people who might be behaving unlawfully.
It is like the debate that we hear from time to time on identity cards. The civil liberties people say that they are dreadful. I am not arguing for them tonight—far from it—but people say that they are terrible because they would give police and other authorities extra access to information about our private lives, but let us not kid ourselves. There is a central police database. There is the database for cars at DVLC in Swansea. They are all interconnected anyway, so there is already a fair amount of intrusion into our lives. We have to trust those who are stewards of that information to ensure that they hold it for the betterment of the good. We have to trust that they are not big brother and that those who are behaving lawfully and decently have nothing to fear.
It seems fairly logical that people such as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend and I, who pay a lot of money for fully comprehensive insurance, should not pay a proportion of that insurance for people who are uninsured. A person involved in a car accident where the


person at fault is not insured finds that his insurance company has to bail him out. It puts up the cost for those of us who are law abiding.
Therefore, the move is a logical extension of modern technology. I welcome it, provided, again, that there are safeguards. There need to be safeguards to ensure that this country's privacy laws and databases are not—[Interruption.] Would my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) like to intervene? No.
With regard to the register for licence plate suppliers, we must discuss what will happen where an error is made in adding or deleting a person from the register. Where will the line of accountability be? Will it lead to the decision maker, and if so, who is the decision maker in that instance? There need to be adequate provisions for the vehicle plate supplier to seek recompense where an error is made.
Clause 33 allows the Home Secretary to make regulations on the size and content of registration plates for motor vehicles. It is a particularly interesting matter. Does the Secretary of State—again, I wonder whether it will be the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions—envisage a change in the shape of licence plates? We are aware of the fact that, for example, Belgium has much smaller licence plates. Holland's licence plate sizes are similar to our own.

Mr. Syms: My hon. Friend is developing a good point. Many licence plates are not particularly traditional. Under existing law, many of those may be illegal, but it is still a burden on the police to chase people up. Given police numbers, does he think that that will be a priority?

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend raises a valid and powerful point. I will repeat it for a third time, although I shall not push the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman did not repeat it. He is getting very repetitive, particularly on police numbers.

Mr. Fabricant: I certainly shall not mention the number of police, of whom there are fewer now, but it is worth answering the question; I think that that is in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No.

Mr. Fabricant: It is not, so I shall not answer the question, but I fear that little can be enforced if there are not the police officers there to do it.
Clause 33 allows the Home Secretary to make regulations on the size and content of registration plates. That is understandable. Does that mean that there will be a change in the size of number plates? If that happens, will those who have the "wrong-sized" licence plates have to change them? If so, how long will they have to do so? How much will it cost them to change their plates? The Home Secretary did not address those issues in his speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The reason why they were not addressed is that they are issues for consideration in Committee. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are on Second Reading.

Mr. Fabricant: I thank you for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The other issue that was not addressed, possibly because it is for consideration in Committee, is that of national identification on licence plates.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and of course I shall observe your exhortation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to discuss the Bill's specific details. However, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to know whether the regulatory impact assessment, in making a judgment on the costs imposed by the Bill, has taken account of the potential for change as a result of the specifications provided for in clause 33? We need to know whether the prognosis on cost has fully taken on board that potential for change, or whether it has failed so far to do so.

Mr. Fabricant: I rather suspect that the Government have failed to take account of that cost. I do not believe, from the question-and-answer session that we had during the Home Secretary's speech, that the Government have considered the cost of implementing any of the Bill's provisions, or the change in costs for those who are affected by the provisions.
Will we, for example, be forced to have the European Union flag on our licence plates? At one point, the Home Secretary said that having the flag would be an option, not a necessity. Later, however, he said that he thought that it would be a necessity. I certainly share the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham on that matter. Even without trains to Lichfield, I will be blowed if I am going to go in a car with a European Union flag on the back of it. Will we have to have a European Union flag on our licence plates? As I have a Union flag stuck on the side of my licence plate, am I committing an offence?

Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole purpose of that part of the Bill is to make licence plates more distinctive and less easy to forge, to make them easier for police to detect? Does he also agree that the smaller the geographical area depicted on the licence plate, the better? For enforcement, would it not be better to have, for example, the Union flag or the cross of St. George rather than something like the European flag, which covers a large geographical area and 350 million people, soon to become half a billion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not only is that matter too detailed for this debate, but it has already been dealt with today. I ask the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) to deal more specifically with the Bill and Second Reading.

Mr. Fabricant: Of course I shall abide by your instruction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
A licence plate is there to be recognised. That is the important point. Anything that impedes recognition of a licence plate by a police officer—where police officers are available—or by an automatic camera has to be wrong. Those are the types of issue on which we need clarification.
If I may, ever so briefly, I should like to make this one interesting point—at least I think that it is interesting. A survey has shown that the British flag is the most recognised flag in the world. Is not that something to be proud of?

Mr. Mark Hendrick: Does the hon. Gentleman accept, first, that the free movement of goods,


services and people is allowed within the European Union? Therefore, as the boundaries in which we can move freely are far greater than those of individual nation states, would it not be more appropriate to have a European Union flag than a Welsh flag, the flag of St. George or the Union flag?
Secondly—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The first point will be enough. We have also dealt more than enough with any type of flag.

Mr. Fabricant: I shall not deal even with flags of convenience, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Let us move on to the issue of funding new traffic cameras. I agree with the hon. Member for Stafford that traffic cameras are to be encouraged when they minimise injury and death at accident black spots. However, as we have all read in various newspaper articles, many traffic cameras do not contain film. Nevertheless, that is not a problem as long as we do not know whether the cameras contain film, as they would still act as a deterrent, which is the point of speed cameras. The point of speed cameras is not to catch people, but to deter them from committing the crime initially.
Too many people know, however, that lack of police funding has led not only to fewer police officers, but to a financial inability to put film in cameras. I do not know the specific situation in Staffordshire, because—fingers crossed—so far I have not been caught by a traffic camera there. However, I have to admit that, on one occasion, on Park lane, a flash went off, making me realise that I had been going just a few miles over the limit. For three or four weeks, I waited anxiously to see whether I would receive a speeding ticket. I did not. I can only assume that the Metropolitan police, who are so underfunded, did not have film in their camera.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Several hon. Members have mentioned speeding, but the Bill has nothing at all to do with speeding.

Mr. Fabricant: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the funding of new traffic cameras is the key provision of part III.
I shall, however, deal with the provision in clause 9 of new police powers. To some extent, I have already dealt with that matter, partly because of the helpful interventions of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms). The clause states:
A constable may at any reasonable time enter and inspect premises for the time being entered in the register.
It is worth rehearsing again the argument about whether a police officer should have access to premises—at a reasonable time or a not reasonable time—without a warrant. If we think that it is good that police have access to registered premises, would it not be even better to provide that police have similar rights to enter unregistered premises where people may be conducting unlawful business? As I said, it seems strange that those who are sufficiently decent, honest and law-abiding to register can be inspected regularly, whereas those who are deliberately conducting unlawful business and choose not to register are protected in law and are not required to submit to an inspection unless the police obtain a warrant.
I have heard of many occasions when the police have heard about illegal activities at specific premises, but, by the time that they obtained a warrant and gained entry, the illegal act was finished and those who committed the act were long gone and could not be brought to book. As ever more legislation is requiring people to join a register, we have to ask if there is not an imbalance and the police should not have powers to enter the same type of premises regardless of whether they are registered or unregistered.
For all the reasons that I have mentioned, I welcome clause 35, which grants the police access to insurance industry databases. To some extent, I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole that such access could be an invasion of privacy. However, when I consider my car insurance bill of £1,000—which seems excessive; perhaps I should use one of those telephone insurers—I cannot help but think that 25 per cent. of my premium is subsidising those who are not insured. Anything that will help to reduce the cost of insurance is to be welcomed. More importantly, anything that will bring to book those who are committing a crime by not taking out insurance is to be applauded. I am not sure how the proposals would be affected by the Data Protection Act 1988. I invite the Minister to go into considerable detail, in what I suspect will be a rather lengthy summing-up, on that.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend has just focused on clause 35, one of the nine clauses in the Bill introducing regulations. Does he agree that the Minister should tell us whether those regulations will be subject to the negative or the affirmative procedure, because that is not clear from the Bill?

Mr. Fabricant: I have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham make that point before to Ministers and it has floored them. I have no doubt that the Minister could answer now with a lightning riposte. However, he does not have to do so, because he will give us the answer at about 10 o'clock tonight, having had two hours' notice, and after the officials have provided him with the information.

Mr. Hill: I know the answer.

Mr. Fabricant: Clearly, the Minister knew that he would be facing my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, and that he might be asked that question. I challenge the Minister to intervene and to tell us the answer.

Mr. Hill: indicated dissent.

Mr. Fabricant: The Minister chooses not to intervene, and I suspect that that could be because of the doleful glare of the Government Whip.
In summary, of course I welcome the Vehicles (Crime) Bill. Anything that can prevent vehicle crime is to be applauded, and anything that can use new technology is to be applauded. However, the legislation—which I fear will not see the light of day before the end of the parliamentary Session—is so much like other Bills being introduced by the Government. They glitter in the short term, rather like a sparkler on new year's eve or on 5 November, but after a few seconds of bright, shining light, they phutter out. They phutter and die, because the


Government do not give them the resources that they need. Like the Bill on yob culture, and all the other proposed legislation about which we hear so much from the Home Office, this measure will phutter and die because the resources for extra police officers are not being given. The police need extra money, extra resources and extra policemen on the ground, if only to restore them to the levels that they had when Labour came into power in 1997.

Helen Jones: I intend to be brief, unlike the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), largely because I am still reeling from the shock of being complimented by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) at the start of the debate. He has managed to put the kibosh on what little hope I had of a political career in one fell swoop.
I want to talk about the principles of the Bill, as you have instructed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There was much discussion in last week's debate on the Loyal Address on the problems of lawlessness and anti-social behaviour, and the climate of fear and insecurity that they create. However, it struck me that there was little reference in that debate to the problems of vehicle crime, which accounts for one fifth of recorded crime, or to the effects of those crimes on the public. That is symptomatic of the way in which we often treat such offences, and indicative of why we have to change and why we need the Bill.
Many people, especially those who live in areas where car theft is prevalent, know that such crime contributes to the climate of insecurity that was being discussed last week, and blights people's everyday lives. They know only too well the awful feeling that one has when one hears a noise outside and has to look to see whether one's car is being damaged or stolen. They also know the relief that one can feel in the morning, in certain areas, when one opens the curtains and finds that the car is still there. That happens to many people. Like many crimes, it affects not only those who are the victims of the crime, but those who fear that they might become the victims of such crimes.
I welcome any measure to ensure that we create a climate in which it will be more difficult for car thieves to operate. The Bill contains several sensible measures of that nature. I was concerned to see it damned with faint praise by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who said that it was
worthy but not terribly important.—[Official Report, 12 December 2000: Vol. 359, c. 539.]
I can only assume that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has never had a car stolen, and never known that sinking feeling when one returns to where one thought one had parked, only to discover an empty space, especially at night.
Like many hon. Members, I have experienced that feeling. I have had two cars stolen—one in Manchester and one in Liverpool, so I am quite even-handed between the two cities. Recently, we had another car damaged on our driveway. At that stage, I was nothing like a woolly liberal. I thought that those events were important, and my constituents find such matters important, as well. However, there has been too great a tendency to treat such

matters almost as victimless crimes, as though we can simply shrug our shoulders and say, "Well, the insurance will deal with it, and that is that." Nothing could be further from the truth. We all pay, through increased insurance premiums.
This kind of crime hits those on the lowest incomes the hardest. They have to cope with the logistical problems of getting to work and getting the children to school without any reserves of cash. However, they often incur a serious financial penalty; if their car is old, but runs perfectly well, the insurance pay-out that they receive might not be enough to purchase a vehicle in similar condition. Many families on low incomes, who might have no savings on which to fall back, and who find it difficult to borrow money, could then find themselves desperate to meet the shortfall. If we fail to get a grip on crimes such as these, people on low incomes in places such as the centre of my constituency will pay the price. That is why we should welcome the Bill.
It is precisely because it is so difficult to catch car thieves in the act that we ought to make it harder for people to profit from disposing of stolen vehicles. I particularly welcome the proposals in the Bill to regulate the motor salvage industry and scrap metal dealers to reduce the opportunities for ringing or for using stolen vehicles for spare parts. It is not surprising that the replies to the consultation document that went out before the Bill was produced were overwhelmingly in favour of a statutory scheme of regulation. I say to Conservative Members who seemed concerned about this measure that the Bill will deal with precisely those people who would not conform to a voluntary code of practice: the dodgy dealers, the Arthur Daleys of this world.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. However, does she agree that, if someone does not register voluntarily, and if there is no methodology by which the police can detect those people who ought to have registered but have not done so, there will be a problem as to how the measure can be enforced? The Bill sets up a register only for those who voluntarily allow themselves to be registered.

Helen Jones: Yes, of course, but the hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that the Bill creates an offence. People will have to register, and local authorities will maintain the register. That is the compulsion in the Bill, and a very necessary compulsion it is. Those who want to register or participate in a voluntary code of practice are precisely those who are likely to be running a genuine business. We need to deal with the others.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Helen Jones: In a moment. If, as is estimated, 78,000 vehicles a year are used for ringing or broken up for spare parts, the more we can do to reduce that number, the greater will be our contribution to reducing vehicle crime. In the spirit of Christmas, I will now give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. The majority of respondents to the consultation who supported statutory regulation might well be justified in doing so. However, will the hon. Lady concede that one of the organisations that expressed


opposition to the statutory regulation model was the Federation of Small Businesses, which is a highly respected and worthwhile organisation, and that at least part of its reason for objecting to the statutory route was that it calculated that about two and a half times as many businesses will be affected by the regulation as the Government calculate?

Helen Jones: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and we can debate the precise figures in Committee. However, I cannot see the logic of arguing that we should try to prevent these crimes from taking place in large businesses but not in small ones. There is no sense in that argument.
The Bill provides for regulating the supply of number plates and registering those who supply them. We should see that not only as a method of tackling car crime but as an important contribution to making it difficult to commit other crimes as well. Fake number plates are often used in robberies, burglaries and—God forbid—in terrorist activities. We have to make it as difficult as possible for criminals to behave in that manner. We should certainly not be making it easy for them to dodge recognition when they commit crimes.
I also want to comment on the measures to give the police access to the insurance industry database to help detect people who are driving without insurance. Before I came to the House I was a solicitor, specialising in personal injury. I have seen too often the results of accidents caused by uninsured drivers. In my view, they are a menace on the road, and this proposal will make an important contribution to road safety as well as crime reduction. Uninsured drivers are much more likely to be in vehicles that are not well maintained and are thus much more likely to be involved in accidents. If they cause personal injury, their victims have one more hurdle to cross before they can claim compensation for their injuries.
There are, of course, many other important provisions. Right hon. and hon. Members who have said that we should judge the regulations by their outcome are quite right. The Bill imposes more regulation in certain areas, but it is regulation for a good purpose. It is intended to stop a major cause of crime and a major problem for many of my constituents.
There are other issues on which I could comment, but I know that some of my colleagues wish to speak. So I hope that I have said enough to convince the House that the measure is far from unimportant. It sets out to tackle a real problem for many of the people whom we represent. It is an important part of the Government's overall strategy of tackling anti-social behaviour and the yob culture and the resulting fear and insecurity. Accepting such crimes as a part of life is likely to lead to their increase. It is time that we took them seriously and introduced proper measures to protect our constituents. The Bill will go a long way towards doing that, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I too welcome the Bill. It will give the police and local authorities another club in the fight against vehicle crime. It is not a panacea; instead, it should be seen as part of a package of measures with which to tackle the problem.
This is a very important issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) said, it affects people's lives. When people have their cars stolen, it affects their livelihood, causing misery and hassle. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) mention agricultural vehicles. Farmers in my constituency report a growing concern that plant taken from farms is difficult to trace.
Closer co-operation between the agencies will lead to better intelligence with which to deal with this menace. We have seen that happen in Kent and Medway. Kent is a model of excellence in terms of using the intelligence-led model of policing. Car crime in Kent and Medway has fallen. It is a tribute to the Medway towns that they have beacon status for their community partnerships and for tackling crime.
I am concerned about people living on limited means who require a car and cannot always afford to buy a new one if theirs is stolen. I have not had my car stolen—although there has been an attempt to break into it—but I have sat on the jury at the trial of a car ringing gang. It was clear that the people before the court were not making vast sums out of car ringing. They were very much at the bottom of the food chain; they operated a small garage in a deprived area of Chatham. They bought the cars, so they were up for handling. It was quite a serious crime, and they were found guilty and sentenced.
During the deliberations, the judge said to one of the defendants, "What do you actually do to these cars when they are brought to you?" The defendant replied, "We T-cut the cars and we did the tappits." The judge looked at him rather curiously and said, "T-cut? What is this T-cut? And, pray tell me, who are the tappits?" So he was clearly in touch with car crime. 1 told a colleague who is a lawyer, and he said that that was just lawyers' humour. From the perplexed reaction on the judge's face, I was not convinced.
I welcome the measures to allow the police to have access to insurance companies' records. People who drive without insurance are, more often than not, dangerous drivers. Co-operation between insurance companies and the police will be very welcome.
I welcome the idea of hypothecating the fines resulting from speed cameras to fund other ones. That is absolutely right. Communities which have to suffer the menace of people driving through their area at dangerous speeds should get something back. If that means that they get speed cameras, and it drives down the number of accidents in the area, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) suggested, that is welcome.
The registration of scrap dealers is also welcome. In my former career as a social worker, one of the foster carriers whom I supervised for a period was very keen to get her hands on a people carrier when they first came out. She eventually found one that she could afford. She drove it around for a couple of months, but discovered when it had its MOT that it was actually two vehicles. She had been driving around children for whom she was responsible, and one can imagine her concern and anguish as to what could have happened. So the registration measure is very welcome.
In an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I referred to abandoned cars. He suggested that he would be willing to consider further provisions in Committee. I am grateful to Mr. David Alexander of Kent


county council and to Mr. Les Preston of Medway council for providing me with some statistics. The number of such vehicles has risen dramatically—mainly because the value of scrap has fallen and cars are cheaper. It is the responsibility of local authorities to clear abandoned cars from our streets, under the auspices of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978—there is some irony in that because 1978 has not gone down in Labour's history as the best year for collecting rubbish from the streets.
The increase shown by the statistics is alarming. Between 1997 and 1998, 1,472 vehicles were abandoned throughout the county of Kent and it is estimated that in 2000–01 that the number will be 11,600. The cost for that is £650,000—for removal as well as storage costs. In 1999–2000, the cost to Medway council will be about £57,000—an increase of about 132 per cent. since last year.

Mr. Syms: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. There will be widespread support throughout the House for dealing with abandoned cars. It is most frustrating for residents to find such cars outside their homes, with the wheels taken, the vehicle burnt and a complete wreck—the whole area goes down.

Mr. Shaw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree with him. He is absolutely right; not only are such vehicles an eyesore, they are extremely dangerous. More often than not, the largest concentration of abandoned vehicles is found in less well-off and more deprived areas. In my constituency, there are Victorian terraces that were designed for horses and carts—not cars—and such vehicles occupy much-needed parking space.
I hope that Ministers will look closely at those matters. I shall do all that I can—as will Kent county council, which has prepared an excellent document—to assist in drafting the necessary provisions. Current legislation is outmoded. We need to review it and the Bill provides us with an excellent opportunity to do so.
The measure will assist the police and agencies to co-operate in tackling a menace—an unacceptable scourge. We should not say that such crimes just happen in our society; that is not good enough. We must provide the law enforcement agencies with the means to tackle them. I hope that the Bill will successfully provide that and that Ministers will carefully consider drafting amendments to deal with abandoned vehicles. I am only too willing to be a member of the Standing Committee and to table such amendments.

Mr. Keith Darvill: I, too, welcome the Bill. I apologise to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) for leaving the Chamber during his speech, but I had to attend a Standing Committee meeting.
The Bill, combined with other measures to which I shall refer, will make a significant contribution to achieving the Government's target of a 30 per cent. reduction in vehicle crime by 2004. That target offers a challenge; it will be difficult but not impossible to reach, provided we allocate resources and a range of initiatives has a combined effect. The measure will undoubtedly protect motorists from car theft and will protect legitimate salvage traders.
I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) and other Members who referred to abandoned vehicles. I support the point made by hon. Members that the measure should be considered more broadly. My hon. Friend's proposals should be considered during proceedings on the Bill; some thought should be given to tightening the existing law to which he referred, so as to assist with its enforcement. I urge the Government and the House to do so.
Such provisions would mesh well with the measure and we should not stray too wide of the mark if we considered them at present. In my constituency, the number of abandoned vehicles is increasing considerably—so much so that the local authority officers responsible for removing such vehicles find that, at the end of a week, they have more cars to deal with than they did at the beginning. Abandoned vehicles are an aspect of vehicle crime that is of increasing concern to our constituents.
The cost of dealing with such vehicles adds to the overall costs of vehicle crime, which are well documented in the Library research paper analysing the Bill. Vehicle crime is the largest single category of recorded crime in England and Wales. In 1999–2000, 1,475,889 such crimes were recorded, including 374,686 thefts of vehicles and 669,232 thefts from vehicles—28 per cent. of all recorded crime during the period.
The estimated cost of vehicle crime is £3.5 billion a year; that includes the costs of the criminal justice system. Of course, that is only part of the misery. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) pointed out, the fear of vehicle crime is great and the impact on victims ranges from nuisance to disaster and severe financial loss. The Home Office estimates that the average economic cost—including justice costs—of each stolen vehicle is about £4,700; that amounts to £367 million a year. There are about 12,000 cases of insurance fraud, estimated at £2,800 each, giving a total cost of £400 million a year. Those statistics show the need for better legislation.
The measure is important and will benefit many of our constituents. However, despite its importance to our constituents and despite the overall economic and public sector costs of vehicle crime, we need to ensure that the regulatory burdens that we impose have an overall benefit. In the light of that, I urge hon. Members to consider the regulatory impact assessments that have been made by the Home Office.
Opposition Members often make points about increasing red tape They made such points regularly while they were in government, but did precious little about the matter. In the unlikely event that they were to return to government, they would do no better. In essence, to tackle problems such as vehicle crime—where businesses can be used by unscrupulous people and those with criminal intent—we need regulation. The overall benefit to the public of such regulation must be balanced against the burden that it imposes.

Mr. Bercow: To what, if not to a reduction in police numbers, does the hon. Gentleman attribute the deterioration in the rates of detection and recovery of stolen vehicles during the past three years?

Mr. Darvill: I have not analysed the statistics for the detection of those crimes, but clearly police numbers will


have an effect. We also need to consider the effect of other measures. Reducing any type of crime will have a beneficial effect on the police force generally, and may affect the other decisions that chief constables may make. To answer the hon. Gentleman's question, one would need to analyse the overall crime pattern in an area.
That is why the local crime partnerships are welcome. For example, I have estates in my constituency where vehicle crime is particularly prevalent, and the local authority and the police can target resources so as to have an impact on that.

Mr. McCabe: Is not one obvious answer to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) to say that the various engineering and voluntary arrangements put in place over the past few years have now achieved their maximum effect, and the improvement is levelling off? Is that not why we need further enforcement measures to tackle the vehicle crime that we have not previously been able to reach?

Mr. Darvill: My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I listened to his speech I recognised his expertise on the subject. Where voluntary measures have no impact, clearly the ability of the police will be diminished. If I read the results of the consultation aright, there is a general consensus in favour of regulation, so that attacks on such crimes can be further developed. There appears to be considerable agreement about the legislation, and approval of the proposals for regulation.
The purpose of part I is to bring the motor salvage industry within a framework of statutory regulation, so as to reduce the opportunity for the disposal of stolen vehicles. That will also assist the police and the other authorities investigating such offences. It is believed that regulating the industry could prevent about 30,000 vehicle thefts and 6,000 fraudulent insurance claims each year.
When my hon. Friend the Minister responds to the debate, will he let the House know what the cost burden of carrying out their registration duties will be for local authorities, and whether he believes that the schemes will adequately cover councils' costs?
I realise that there has been consultation, but my reading of the references in the Library research paper suggests that the costs, if the regulatory regime is to be effective, have been underestimated. Although there are gains to be made from the measure, I have some sympathy with some of the points made earlier by Conservative Members. This is not a party political point, because when the Conservative party was in government it made the same mistakes. Often we pass good measures in the House, but do not give local authorities the necessary resources to enforce them.
If we allow registration to take place in a cursory way, without insisting on the possible advantages of correct enforcement, we shall not get the benefits of that registration.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is making a good and powerful point, but does he agree that something else that will affect the effectiveness of the legislation is the criminal's perception of the capabilities of the police? If

the criminal believes that he can get away with something because the police do not have the resources to enforce the Act adequately—

Mr. Forth: If?

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend is right; the criminal will try to get away with it. Perception is all-important, and if that sort of perception is to be overcome, the police will have to have adequate resources.

Mr. Darvill: I do not share the criminal mind of someone who might want to steal vehicles, but surely the point is that we want to make the legislation work. It is a combination of crime partnerships, police resourcing and a range of other measures that will deter the criminal.
We must approach the Bill in a bipartisan way, because the cost benefits for the country will be considerable. There is unlikely to be much division between us in terms of supporting the principle behind it.
Before leaving part I, we need to consider the end of life vehicles directive, which will be with us by April 2002. The Government will ask police forces and local authorities to monitor the impact of the regulations, which they intend to review in the light of the implementation information, and of the directive.
There are opportunities here for a more joined-up approach, because there is an environmental aspect to the way in which we deal with end-of-life vehicles—the abandoned vehicles that I mentioned earlier. Within the next two years there might be some opportunity to mesh the various provisions to give a better cost benefit for the public sector.
That might mean greater co-operation between local authorities, the police and so on, and the matter needs considering in detail. There might be an opportunity to make some provision in the Bill, so that when the end of life vehicles directive comes into force the necessary regulations can be amended. That would be easier than using primary legislation again.
Part II deals with the registration of number plate suppliers. The United Kingdom is the only country in Europe where number plates are so readily accessible. The Bill will ensure that plates are issued only for genuine reasons, and are used only on the correct vehicles. That long-overdue provision will help to reduce crime.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that clause 33 contains an enabling power for the Secretary of State to specify the size and shape, and the other dimensions and particulars, of registration plates. Does he agree that that provision should not enable the Secretary of State, in the name of uniformity, to do away with personalised number plates, which I think add to the colour and gaiety of the nation? As a humble son of toil, I, of course, do not possess personalised number plates, and I have no expectation of possessing them at any stage in my career. None the less, I defend the right of those who can afford to buy them to continue to do so. Does the hon. Gentleman also defend that right?

Mr. Darvill: I defend the right of anyone to do that, provided that the overall effect is not negative—but if there were an advantage to be gained in more conformity


and more standardised provisions in terms of technology, enforcement and detection, and if the overall benefit of that could be proven, I would be happy to go along with it. I have no desire for personalised number plates myself, but I appreciate that some do. To me, it is not a major issue.
I welcome the provisions on disclosure of information, especially those in clause 17(7) about the police information technology organisation. That will be a powerful provision and will have some benefit.
It is interesting that when the views of small and medium-sized businesses were sought, to assess the effectiveness of the proposed regulations in this part of the Bill, none opposed them, and all considered the potential costs to be insignificant.
On part III, I particularly welcome clause 36, which deals with the extension of time limits for prosecution, and clause 37, which provides that the income that criminal courts receive from speed camera penalties can be used to fund more speed cameras and to improve road safety. The impact of speed cameras has been generally beneficial. More speed cameras are required in my area and funding from that source will be welcomed. I should be interested to learn how those funds will be allocated between areas—perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us in his winding-up speech.
In conclusion, the Bill will not end vehicle crime, but it will help to reduce it. That must be welcome. Public awareness initiatives, greater security in car parks, extended CCTV, improved vehicle design, schemes targeted at those young people at risk of involvement in vehicle crime and a range of other initiatives will all contribute to meeting the Government's targets. Hon. Members should not ignore the range of initiatives that will have that impact. With the Bill on the statute book, the fight against crime will be helped, and for that reason it will receive my support and, I hope, that of the rest of the House.

Mr. Robert Syms: I want to contribute briefly to what has been a pretty good debate. I begin by declaring my interest, as stated in the Register of Members' Interests: I have a family business in the building industry, and I intend to mention plant and equipment.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) made a good contribution, because he set out the background against which the debate is taking place. He mentioned the fact that, after the purchase of a house, the purchase of a car involves the largest sum that people spend. People are very attached to their cars; they are important parts of their lives. Most of us who represent rural constituencies know that cars are a necessity of life; our constituents cannot do without them. Therefore, any threat to those vehicles, which they perceive as enabling them to live a free life, is treated very seriously.
Broadly speaking, I welcome the fact that the Government have introduced the Bill. Of course, the devil is in the detail and it is for the Committee to consider the various proposals to determine whether they will achieve the Government's ambitious target of a 30 per cent. reduction in such crime by 2004. Nevertheless, why

should not we be ambitious and set targets, especially on car crime, from which many people have suffered greatly? The debates in Committee will be interesting.
As the hon. Member for Eastleigh also mentioned, such crime does not purely involve road-going vehicles; there has been a growth in the theft of farm vehicles and plant. The building industry has suffered greatly from its plant and equipment being stolen from sites. Some years ago, the vehicle registration authorities used to register, for example, vibrating rollers for no fee. However, because no tax was paid on such vehicles, the registration authorities introduced a form of tax and builders had to choose whether to play to license them, or not to license them and keep them off the road on building sites. Those decisions, which the industry has been pushed into taking, have contributed to the rise in such crime. It is right and proper that vehicle crime should be a high priority for the Government. Where they are right, they will receive the support of Conservative Members.
The hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) and for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) raised the issue of abandoned cars. Many of us feel pretty strongly about that matter. I do not think that there is a Member whose constituents have not written to him or her about abandoned cars in their streets and communities and the frustration involved in writing to the police and the vehicle licensing people. They are trying to get rid of vehicles that cause great angst; kids play on them and their windows are broken, which presents a danger to children. Often reasonable-looking vehicles are quickly torn to pieces and sometimes torched. Even in my constituency, many such vehicles can be counted in certain estates. I urge the Government to consider whether the law on abandoned cars should be reviewed in Committee; we all think that more should be done about them.
As has been said, it is important to get the balance right when setting up a regulatory framework. Various figures for the costs have lot en cited—£13 million to £20 million in the first year and £11 million to £18 million thereafter. There is always a danger that law-abiding people will sign up, but those who are not reputable will try to avoid doing so. It is important to ensure that there is widespread acceptance of the legislation before cracking down on the rotten apples in the barrel.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend wisely draws attention to the importance of thoroughly considering the proposed regulations. Therefore, does he agree that it is essential that, either tonight or very soon, the Government undertake to introduce a minimum period—perhaps three months—during which affected organisations are consulted and that decent notice of the requirement to implement the regulations is provided to those who will have to give effect to them?

Mr. Syms: That is a good point. Many people are trying to run their businesses—life as a small business man can be hard—and they may not initially be aware that they must comply. Therefore, there should be reasonable consultation and a reasonable period before the regulations come into force, but sufficient penalties should be imposed on those who do not comply with the law of the land, so that the scheme receives widespread acceptance as early as possible.
Local authority costs have been mentioned. All Governments are guilty of underestimating the costs to local authorities. I spent 12 years as a local councillor, and such proposals always cost more than was originally thought. If a charging regime is introduced through local government, those in the inner cities may have to charge higher fees because they have more client businesses. That is a problem.

Mr. Shaw: I referred to high figures for local authorities, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the cost of dealing with abandoned vehicles should not be placed on council tax payers and that those who abandon the vehicles should face far stiffer and higher fines?

Mr. Syms: That is a good point. I too, would focus on abandoned vehicles. If we could trace their owners and impose a large fine, that might be the solution. Of course, hon. Members on both sides of the House will be aware that there is a risk that either local authorities will have to bear the costs, and all local authorities are under pressure these days, or they will have to recover those costs by charging people in the industry. We all know that costs are eventually passed on to those who use the authority's services, and we must all be aware of that.
We have debated funding for new traffic cameras. One of the great successes of the past 20 years has been the way in which people have accepted the drink-drive laws. Attitudes have changed considerably It is also important to obtain public support for speed cameras. It is not enough to pass laws; we must change people's attitudes.

Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Syms: I will give way in a moment.
It is important that people understand that the overwhelming priority in the installation of speed cameras is safety and saving lives. They must appreciate that cameras have not been put in particular spots to catch people and to be used as an easy means of raising revenue. When the Bill goes to Committee, we need to be reassured that the priority will be safety and saving lives.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend has almost answered my question by developing his argument. However, does he not think that people have a responsible attitude towards drinking and driving because of the limits for alcohol in the blood that have been set? Does he not also think that certain aspects of the speed limits that have been set must be reconsidered? Does he not think that, at times, speed limits are set too high or too low? If there are to be many more speed cameras and much more enforcement, we must take a more rigorous approach to the limits.

Mr. Syms: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I do not want to stray too far into a discussion of that issue. This debate is not about drinking and driving. However, legislation will be accepted if it contains a reasonable balance.
My principal point is that if people understand that speed cameras are intended to save lives and to prevent accidents, there will be widespread acceptance of them. However, if people think that they are intended merely to annoy drivers and to raise extra revenue, there will not be

such acceptance. On some patches of road, people know where the speed cameras are and they slow down for a mile. However, the moment they have passed the cameras, they put their foot down to make up for the delay in their journey. Therefore, if money is recycled from magistrates courts to providing more cameras, we need to be reassured that safety will be the No.1 priority.
I do not have the figures to hand, but the costs to the nation of road accidents were quoted earlier. We would make substantial savings if we could reduce the number of casualties on the roads. The casualties are not only drivers; too many children are knocked over.
Clause 35 and police access to the insurance industry's database were mentioned. There might be benefits to the insurance industry and the police if that happens, but certain data protection issues will have to be examined in Committee. Under the current Data Protection Acts, a local authority housing department cannot give housing information to another department in the local authority, because access to the information is strictly controlled. Therefore, giving all the insurance companies' information to the police is bound to raise data protection issues.
This country is slightly unusual. We have many company cars and many of them are insured under block policies. Cover notes are also widely used when people purchase vehicles. Unless insurance companies have very up-to-date data systems that keep daily track of cover notes, it will not be worth providing information, because many thousands of vehicles are covered by cover notes. The police might think that they have stopped someone who does not have proper insurance only to find that he has a cover note. The proposal needs to be thought out carefully.
Under current law, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is unable to refuse to grant a licence to a vehicle when one is requested. That means that vehicles that it knows to be fraudulent are issued with roadworthiness certificates. Nothing in the Bill will alter that law and, as a result, the new provision will have little practical effect. We should consider that point in Committee. It was highlighted by Sandy Dalgano of the National Salvage Group, and we need further clarification on it.
To some extent, the issue of police numbers has been done to death, but the fact is that there are 3,000 fewer police officers than in 1997. The police face tremendous pressures, and, as a society, we constantly introduce crime Bills but do not grapple with crime. The Government have promised to tackle the problem, and I was pleased to hear from several hon. Members that the police colleges are filling up with recruits. They will be needed because of the amount of legislation that is being introduced.
Overall, a Bill on vehicle crime is a good proposal, but the devil will certainly be in the detail. I am not sure that the Government have got all their proposals right, but there will be a lively debate on them in Committee. I hope that we eventually have a Bill that does the job of reducing vehicle crime, which most people believe needs to be done.

Mr. Eric Forth: Surely our task as the House of Commons is—if nothing else—to assess the balance of benefit that the Government's proposed measures might bring to our constituents. I am always more suspicious when consensus breaks out


because it usually means that a measure is ill considered. That is especially the case when my Front-Bench colleagues sign up to it—that almost guarantees that it is rotten. The debate has some way to run and, although I am mindful of the need to allow adequate time for Front-Bench spokesmen to sum up—no doubt consensually—it is incumbent on us to identify less-than-perfect aspects of the Bill before we rush headlong into agreeing to it.
Nearly every contribution has referred to the Government's target to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. I confess that I have always been suspicious of the concept of targets. I am not sure what they mean. I do not know where the figure of 30 per cent. came from; I do not know what it means or to what it relates; I do not know who thinks that it is an ambitious or unambitious target and, what is worse, I am not sure what happens if we do not meet it.
My Government went through a phase of being fond of targets. They are presentationally sexy and it looks good for Ministers to say, "We have set a target" for a reduction in, for example, smoking. Indeed, I recall that one of our Health Ministers set a target for the reduction of suicide. That must be the ultimate in a triumph of hope over expectation.

Mr. Syms: Did the number of suicides go up or down in the 18 years that the Conservatives were in government?

Mr. Forth: To be honest, I do not know the answer. Even if I did, I suspect that Madam Deputy Speaker might take a dim view of an excursion too far into that territory.
A vehicle crime reduction target of 30 per cent. is utterly meaningless and has no substance. If, at the end of the arbitrary period for which the arbitrary figure was set, we discovered that the target had not been achieved, would that mean that the measures were a failure? Would it mean that we needed more, fewer or different measures? The issue of targets should be set aside and be paid far less attention.

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend is often persuasive, but he is failing to persuade me with that argument. Does he not think that a target—provided that it is reasonably realistic—gives one something to aim for and to measure success against?

Mr. Forth: No, I do not. It should surely be the objective of any Government, judicial system and police force constantly to reduce crime. That should be their very essence. Does my hon. Friend think that if a heavy-handed bureaucrat or politician says, "I am now going to set a target of 30 per cent.", police officers and civil servants will work harder and the judiciary will play its part? I doubt it. I question the concept of targeting and its likely effect.

Mr. Bercow: I should put it on the record that I have not expressed support for the Bill. However, although the Government's target to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. by 2004 is ambitious, is my right hon. Friend aware that they have gone so far as to set out in some detail

the means by which that is to be achieved? In short, the Government expect 50,000 offences to be prevented by the secure car parks scheme, 50,000 by improved DVLA procedures, 50,000 by better regulation of the salvage industry, 180,000 by improved use of security features and new car security and 80,000 by what is conveniently described as better policing and community responses, which is a total of more than 400,000. Do the words "pigs flying in front of one's very eyes" spring to my right hon. Friend's mind?

Mr. Forth: Indeed they do, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for illustrating my point even more effectively than I have, which is not an unusual occurrence.
I would be more convinced by targeting if we heard more Ministers say, as some have said, "If the target is not achieved, I will resign." In a debate on a subject akin to that of the Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister said that if car usage had not fallen by the end of the Labour Government's first term, they would have failed. If there was more of that, I might be more attracted by the notion of targeting; so far, however, I regard it as a distraction.
It is always useful to mine the explanatory notes to a Bill. In this case, we find our old friend "consultation". Paragraph 6 of the notes usefully provided by Her Majesty's Government states:
Twenty-six organisations replied to the consultation document. Of these twenty-two endorsed the proposal for statutory regulation.
It would have aided the cause of transparency if the Government had told us which organisations they had consulted.

Mr. Darvill: When going through the Home Office website, I found in the regulatory impact assessment a list of the organisations that were consulted.

Mr. Bercow: Read it out.

Mr. Darvill: I shall not, save to say that the list begins with the Association of British Insurers and ends with the Welsh Development Agency.

Mr. Forth: What?

Mr. Darvill: The Welsh Development Agency.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not do websites, so that information would have evaded me. However, the fact that the Welsh Development Agency said yes to its paymasters does not surprise me in the slightest. I should have been astonished if the bureaucrats of that agency had slapped their paymasters in the face by saying that the idea was a rotten one and they opposed it.
That makes my case. I do not know whether this website thing reveals who said no during the act of so-called consultation. It might well list all those who said yes and it might even tell us who boldly and bravely said no, but my point is altogether different. It is that when regulation is on offer in a consultation, as it was in this case, it is highly likely that the bureaucratic organisations responding to the consultation will be in favour. Bureaucracies like regulation. The association of this and the institute of that will tend to be sympathetic to the idea of regulation, because it allows them to continue to exist


and enables them to charge their hapless members greater membership fees to deal with the regulations to which they have agreed. There is a circularity in the process which I have always found highly suspicious.
Furthermore, large businesses tend to favour proposals for regulations. They have administrative structures that enable them to respond to regulation in a way that small businesses cannot and do not.

Mr. Heald: Is my right hon. Friend interested in the fact that the Federation of Small Businesses has expressed a desperate desire for small businesses in the sector to be exempted from such regulation? Does that not reinforce his argument?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who must look up websites like the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill). Perhaps one of these days I shall get into the websites thing, but I have resisted it so far. My hon. Friend is quite right.
The other aspect of that important point is that a regulatory regime tends to lessen the likelihood of new businesses being created. Is it not odd that Governments—I do not exclude Conservative Governments—constantly say how much they want to encourage the creation of new businesses and the growth of small businesses, but, at the same time, show no reluctance to heap ever heavier regulation on such businesses? I should have thought that those who deal in car number plates would tend to fall into the category of small business. Throughout the debate, we have been congratulating ourselves on how wonderful the Bill is, but let us not forget that the very people who will, almost inevitably, be most adversely affected by its plethora of proposals are not the bureaucracies, the representative bodies, or the large firms with their administrative and clerical resources, but small businesses.
For that reason, I am not convinced by the consultation process. Consultation is something that Governments like to say that they are doing and they like to go though the motions, but only rarely have I found an example of a Government quietly dropping a proposal after a majority of those consulted, however measured, have said no to it. If I had found more cases of Government's behaving in that way, I might be more impressed by the so-called consultation process mentioned in the explanatory notes.
Of course, a totalitarian regime can deliver an almost crime-free society. We will all remember the proud boast of the Soviet Union, as it was, and other totalitarian regimes, that they were free of drug abuse and street muggings and that there was almost no car crime. There was almost no car crime because nobody could afford a car. The more heavy-handed, interventionist and regulatory the Government of a society is, the more they are likely to claim that they have reduced or eliminated crime. It is not a difficult thing to do
At the other end of the spectrum I suppose that the freer a society is—the freer people are to move around and the freer they are from identity checks, for example, and registering addresses with the police—the more likely it is that acts of criminality will be committed. In the context of the Bill, our job is surely to make our judgment on where within the spectrum we want to place ourselves as a society, the Government and the legal system.
I am suspicious of Bills of this sort because all too readily they reach for the apparatus of regulation and intervention to claim a reduction in crime. No one would

argue that a reduction in crime is not a good thing, but it is not an absolute in the sense in which it is often argued to be. Surely our job is to make an assessment. How far do we believe that it is proper, advantageous and beneficial in an overall sense to allow for increasing encroachment on individuals, their families and their businesses by bureaucracy and the forces of law and order to deliver a reduction in crime?
I am uneasy because I believe that in many important ways the Bill potentially tips the balance too far. In his excellent analysis, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) identified many areas of the Bill where new regulations and regulatory measures will be introduced. If I heard him correctly, he said that there are nine. If my hon. Friend says that, we can bet that it is correct.
That should give us pause for thought. The Bill is introducing nine distinct regulatory regimes, mechanisms and apparatuses. It is worse than that because it is all that goes with them. We have only to glance at the summary of clauses 1 to 15, with all the references to registration, renewal, cancellation, representations, appeals and the introductions of the courts, which are brought in almost casually. We have the maintenance of records and notifications of change. All that is before we get into the detail.
We have our old friend, rights of entry and inspection. Given the nature of the Bill, that should claim our attention. The oddity or irony is that the proposed regime will say, "Those who have taken the trouble to obey the law"—that is if it becomes the law—"register and be identified, will be vulnerable to the right of entry being exercised by a constable." Those who have not registered—those who persist in trying to dismantle vehicles and deal in vehicle registration plates outside the regime—will not be subject to entry or inspection by the police. First, almost by definition, the police will not know where they are. Secondly, I suspect—I am open to correction because I am not a lawyer—that if the police want to invade the premises of someone who is not registered, they will have to obtain permission or a warrant, which they would not have to obtain to inspect someone who had registered. That must be the ultimate absurdity, yet it is set out in the Bill.

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the imbalance in the protection of registered and unregistered dealers. Would he argue that there ought to be equality between them as regards rights of entry? If so, would he argue that a warrant should be necessary for entry into the property of registered as well as unregistered dealers, or would he go so far as to say that the property of both registered and unregistered dealers may be entered by the police without a warrant?

Mr. Forth: Certainly not the latter. I confess to my hon. Friend, as it is relevant to his question, that I have always been uneasy about the general powers of entry that we give, for example, to Customs and Excise in respect of value added tax and other matters. If I had to express my preference, it would be against a general power of entry. I would want to rely on the more traditional British or English approach, if I may so characterise it: that one's


property is sacrosanct unless a judicial authority such as a judge or a magistrate gives the forces of law and order the authority to enter those premises.

Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend accept that in that view, he is not alone? I, for one, regard with extreme distaste the prospect of hundreds, if not thousands, of petty officials charging into people's property across the country, without let or hindrance and usually without a warrant. I find that prospect deeply unattractive.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
The problem is slightly different. The Bill explicitly gives to constables the power of entry. As my hon. Friends have been at pains to point out all through the debate, whether we have sufficient constables and whether they should spend their time in that way is a matter on which we must exercise our judgment. Again, I may return to that later in my remarks.
Suffice it to say at this stage in my preliminary analysis that the burdens placed on local authorities and more particularly on businesses to comply with the mechanisms set out in the Bill will be very much greater than the Government have so far been prepared to concede. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said, we tend to say rather glibly that local authorities exist almost to have regulatory burdens imposed on them. That is almost their raison d'etre, if I may slip briefly into another language. We should challenge that belief, but I am much more concerned about the burdens on business to which the Bill will give rise.
From a glance at the Bill, one begins to realise the enormity of its consequences for business. In clause 2 the responsibilities laid on local authorities are set out. I must praise the draftsmen, as the Bill is much more comprehensible and readable than are most Bills. That is a welcome development.
Clause 2(1) states:
Every local authority shall establish and maintain a register for their area of persons carrying on business as motor salvage operators in that area.
That immediately raises the prospect of a variation in the approach that could be taken by our many authorities to the principles on which they will set up the register, to say nothing of the bureaucracy implied by it.
Clause 2(9) goes on to state:
The local authority shall secure that the contents of the register are available for inspection by members of the public at all reasonable times subject to such reasonable fees (if any) as the local authority may determine.
The possibility arises that there could be considerable variation in the fees charged by local authorities.
Part II gives responsibility to the Secretary of State, rather than to local authorities. There we have the monolith of the Secretary of State, who will administer that part of the Bill, as opposed to the great patchwork or mosaic of local authorities to which responsibility is given in part I. That variation in the terms of the Bill itself suggests that one approach or the other may be the correct one, but almost certainly not both.

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend rightly pointed out that there could be a large variation in the sums that

salvage operators might be charged for registering on their local authority register. Does he share my suspicion that a local authority may choose to set abnormally high fees as an alternative to panning, to try to drive some types of business out of its area? Alternatively, it may try to drive certain businesses out of the area for political reasons, to create higher unemployment.

Mr. Forth: I am happy to say that I do not think that that would be the case. Subsection (9) states:
subject to such reasonable fees (if any) as the local authority may determine.
That includes a double lock, as the implication is that fees may not be the norm. Our old friend "reasonable" comes to the rescue. What a wonderful English word it is; we should be proud of it. In English jurisprudence, history and culture the word "reasonable" has probably been one of the greatest barriers against the abuse of authority over the centuries. I regret that our continental friends have not yet learned to share it. In fact, I do not think that such a word—rather like fair play—exists in most of the languages of the European Union; I can therefore reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who asked a good question. I hope that he will accept that the inclusion of "reasonable" in clause 2(9) gives a degree of protection. However, I am worried about the basis on which the local authority will admit people to the register. Clause 3(3) refers to the fact that the local authority must be satisfied that someone is
a fit and proper person to carry on business.
Who on earth in a local authority is in a position to judge whether someone is fit and proper to carry on a business? I should have thought that that was almost a contradiction in terms. Local authority people may be excellent and skilled in drains, planning and all sorts of other things. Whether someone whom I would characterise, I hope not unkindly, as a bureaucrat can judge who is fit to carry out a proper business is another matter—I doubt it very much indeed.
It gets worse, clause 3(4) states that, when judging people's suitability, the local authority shall "in particular" consider whether they have
been convicted of any offences.
That rather gives away the psychology behind the measure. The main criterion against which we are being urged to judge people's suitability for running a business seems to be whether they have form, which strikes me as an odd, simplistic and completely wrong approach. I hope that that matter will be looked at in Committee.

Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that quite apart from any other objections to the clause, the suggestion or inference that someone convicted of an offence might reasonably be decided to be an unsuitable person to operate a motor salvage business is inconsistent with the principle of the reform and resettlement of offenders, to which, I believed, the Government adhered?

Mr. Forth: That is yet another contradiction that becomes apparent the more that we start to look at the Bill. We shall come on to consider the length of time that it is proposed be made available for the Bill's Committee stage. The more that I listen to the debate, most of which I have heard, and the more I hear what my hon. Friends have to say, the more I realise that a long Committee stage


will be needed to do justice to the Bill, which is very substantial. The more that we look at it, even in this broad tour d'horizon of Second Reading—I must try not to lapse into these ghastly foreign phrases—the worse it appears. The people who have the honour to be on the Committee will have a fascinating time.
Let me give another example. I am moving on swiftly, you will be happy to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, and making great progress through the Bill, as I am now at clause 5(6), which deals with representations. I am happy that that important right is in the Bill Then, however, the Government spoil it. Every time they do something useful, positive and helpful, such as providing a right to make representations, they ruin the whole thing. Clause 5(6) states:
If the person concerned informs the local authority that he desires to make oral representations, the local authority shall give him—
this is the good news—
an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by—
and this is the bad news—
a person appointed by the local authority.
As a citizen, I shall be expected to be happy and content that my rights are being well protected by the Government because I shall be heard by somebody who is appointed by the local authority. That is not good enough. The measure is that of a bureaucrat's bureaucrat, and I fear that the worst may happen.

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend disagreed with me just now on excessive charges, on the basis of the principle of reasonability. Does he believe that there could be large variations between councils in the people who are appointed to hear appeals and the judgments that they make?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. We are now straying into considerable detail. I must again remind hon. Members that that is not permissible on Second Reading.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful for your, guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I was about momentarily to argue against myself. This debate has been very one sided, and I am the only hon. Member who seems prepared to introduce another side. I take issue with a phrase that appears in clause 9(1), which deals with rights to enter and inspect premises. It states:
A constable may at any reasonable time enter and inspect premises …
That provision seems to undermine the idea of entry and inspection. I do not know how a reasonable time will be defined, but we will eventually be given a definition, as we must all understand what is reasonable. Will it mean office hours? Do salvage operators work office hours? They may work 24 hours a day, for all I know. What is a reasonable time? Furthermore, why should the time be reasonable? If constables are to inspect premises in which crimes are committed, I want them to enter at unreasonable times if that is effective. I am uneasy about the right of entry and inspection, but, if it is to be introduced, I would prefer constables to be given more freedom to enter at unreasonable times to identify the crimes that are allegedly being committed, rather than for their hands to be unreasonably tied.

Mr. Bercow: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that clause 9(2) refers to the right of a constable at any reasonable time to
inspect and take copies of or extracts from any records which the person carrying on business … is required to keep?
Does he accept that there is an important difference between taking copies—an activity that does not threaten to impede the conduct of the business—and taking extracts from records, which might impact adversely on a motor salvage operator?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions are supposed to be brief.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is right to make that point, which should be further considered in Committee. Later in my remarks, I should like to refer to a peculiar element of the Bill; I notify the House that I think that it is contained in clause 39(6). The point that I shall make is not unadjacent to that made by my hon. Friend, as, bizarrely, that provision relates to the electronic transmission of some rather important documents. In spite of my hon. Friend's excellent question, I shall not go into any detail on the matter, although I should point out that when such a measure is being considered, hon. Members must be careful of its viability, security and integrity as a process, if we are to make it of any value whatever.
Many questions arise in respect of technology. For example, where would the copies be made? Is it assumed that they will be made on the premises, or will they be removed? If they are to be removed, how much security will there be and for how long will they be kept away from the premises? All those questions will arise when we consider the Bill in detail.
I shall move very swiftly on because I do not want to delay proceedings. I am conscious of the passage of time and know that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) is itching to get stuck into his summary of the Bill, but I want to comment on one or two other items. I have already reached clause 28(1)—what a leap, Madam Deputy Speaker—although I have passed over a lot of material that I had wanted to cover. It is another loose provision that does no justice to the Minister or, dare I say it, to the draftsmen. It deals with the offence of supplying vehicle registration plates to unregistered persons and who would be guilty of an offence, referring to a person who
supplies a plate, device or other object to an unregistered person who is carrying on a business which consists wholly or partly in selling registration plates …
The grammar is somewhat doubtful and there are clauses in the wrong place, but I pass over that and simply ask how I would know whether a person was registered or unregistered. Have we reached the stage at which people who do business with one another, probably through small businesses, will have to go through a process of satisfying themselves as to whether those with whom they are dealing are registered or unregistered? I think that we have. How will all that be done? What sort of intrusion on the business of doing business, personal privacy and business confidentiality does the measure represent? I believe that such a phrase in such a Bill could cause untold difficulty.
Furthermore, subsection (1)(b) refers to someone who
knows or reasonably suspects that the plate, device or other object will be used for the purposes of that other person's business …
Going through a process of establishing whether a person reasonably suspects that the item that he is selling to or buying from someone else will be used
for the purposes of that other person's business
will put a terrible burden on small businesses. I believe that it stretches the matter way too far, and we must give that a lot of detailed consideration.
I draw the attention of the House to clause 32. Should we vote for the Bill's Second Reading, I hope that the Committee will also pay it close attention. Although I had wanted to go into detail, I shall not do so, even though the measure represents the high point of bureaucratic absurdity. It starts innocently enough—such things ever do—by referring to vehicle identity checks and applies to regulations
which confer a power on the Secretary of State to refuse to issue a new registration document in respect of a registered vehicle if he is not satisfied that the vehicle for which the document is being sought is the registered vehicle.
Well, that is a bit convoluted. I praised the Bill for its clear English, but I am afraid that that high standard has been deserted.
The measure is a bureaucratic nightmare. Subsections (2)(a) and (b) and (3)(a) to (j) set out in chilling detail what the regulations provide for, such as
the examination … of all vehicles for which new registration documents are being sought … the provision of other evidence in relation to
those vehicles. They also refer to
notification of examinations … the issue of duplicates or copies … the correction of errors in certificates … the payment of fees for examinations—
yet another burden enters the matter—and
the making of appeals … courses of instruction … the authorisation of examiners …
The clause is truly a construct at which we must wonder. It contains all the favourite elements of a Government out of control who cannot wait to get their hands round the necks of innocent businesses: notifications, duplicates, errors, fees, appeals, instructions, examiners—we have gone mad! We have finally taken collective leave of our senses.
I regret to say that many of my hon. Friends have said all through the debate that the Bill is rather a good idea. Well, I am sorry, but I ask them to read clause 32 before they vote and hope that they will think again. I do not know how long those on the Front Benches want for their winding-up speeches. I am looking at the clock; I am aware of the passage of time. The Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire look pretty relaxed to me. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend has just indicated with his inimitable body language—his body certainly exudes language—that he is anxious to get on with his summing up.
I shall not keep my hon. Friend waiting much longer, nor will I detain the House on the subject of flags as we have heard a lot about them tonight. All I will say is that I hope that the Minister will favour hon. Members with

his detailed explanation of exactly what the Government and the Secretary of State intend by the reference to registration plates in clause 33.
I believe the Government owe it to the House, and to those outside, to tell us the direction in which they will take us, because people attach great importance to the issue. We recently encountered controversy about the flying of the European Union flag outside Departments of State, and I have reason to believe that the Government may have thought better of that.
The Government must tell us what they intend with regard to either mandatory or optional display of European Union symbols on British car registration plates, and/or prohibition of the use of the Union flag—or, indeed, the flags of member countries of the Union—on registration plates. If the Government have nothing to be ashamed of, let the Minister tell us in clear language what they are going to do and why. We shall then be able to use that in deciding whether to support the Bill, either tonight or on Third Reading.
I cannot share the enthusiasm displayed by others. Of course, I have had only a short time in which to talk about the Bill: I have been able only to skip over it superficially. That falls far short of my normal standards, but I want to leave as much time as possible for my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire. Because I am sure he has much to say, and because I know that regrettably we must finish at 10 pm, I shall end my speech. However, I hope that, both at this stage and subsequently, my hon. Friends will not regard the Bill as an unalloyed benefit that does not contain problems, difficulties and disadvantages.
It is possible that if we are not ultimately satisfied by the answers given to my hon. Friends and me, we shall have to think very carefully about whether to support the Bill; but with a bit of luck the general election will intervene, and we shall hear no more of it for some time.

Mr. Oliver Heald: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has done me a great courtesy in sitting down. It is clear from the way he spoke that he could have said a good deal more about the Bill.
We have had a good debate. Not only my right hon. Friend but my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)—all of them speaking from the Back Benches—demonstrated what my hon. Friend the Me member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made obvious from the Front Bench: the fact that the Bill raises a host of issues. They are important issues; difficult issues; perhaps not the sort of issues that would lead to a Division on Second Reading, but none the less the sort of issues that will require full scrutiny, and—as my right hon. Friend said—which will take up considerable time in Committee.
All who spoke acknowledged the seriousness with which we should all take vehicle crime, which is the largest single category of recorded crime in England and Wales. As the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) pointed out, it represents 28 per cent. of all crime. There were nearly 1.5 million offences in the last year, and 375,000 thefts of vehicles—1,000 a day, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) pointed out.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole illustrated so graphically, car crime causes great distress to its victims. The problem is not just the damage to property, but the damage to a prized item—a means of transport, which is important to many people's quality of life. Cars are obviously important to all of us, but one of the cruellest aspects of these offences is that they are usually perpetrated on the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. The vehicles are often elderly, but necessary for their owners to go to work and lead their lives.
We are talking about a serious offence, or set of offences. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield summed it up when he described the feelings people have when they see that their vehicles have been damaged or stolen, or that items have been taken from them.
The background and the history of vehicle crime have been well documented and detailed in the debate. It is right to give credit to the previous Government. Of course I would say that, having been a junior Minister in it, but even the Under-Secretary of State might be prepared to because, between 1993 and 1997, there was a substantial fall in vehicle crime: it went down by 27 per cent. The combination of the introduction of closed circuit television, the rise in the number of police constables under the Conservatives, and a series of measures such as the code of practice concentrating on dealing with security of vehicles led to the start of that fall.
The Home Secretary is right to say that the target to cut vehicle crime by 30 per cent. by 2004 is challenging. It is challenging because the rate of improvement—the diminishment in the number of offences—is declining. In 1998–99, there was a fall in vehicle crime of 2.2 per cent., but last year, the decrease was just 0.5 per cent. The trend is not a happy one. I can see why the Government wish to take measures to improve the position.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was correct to say that there was a balance to be struck in regulating. Part I requires the registration of all motor salvage operators on pain of criminal conviction. It would allow local authorities to control the membership of the register by cancellation and registration, allow the Secretary of State to specify records to be kept, require notifications of destructions, and allow a power of entry for the registered, although a warrant would still be needed for the unregistered; but we are right to look at the balance and to see how those measures would affect businesses.
If one reads the consultation responses and the Government's documents in relation to the Bill, one of the things that is worrying is that it is not even clear how many businesses will be affected. The Government say between 2,000 and 2,500, but the Federation of Small Businesses is clear: it says 7,500.
The British Vehicle Salvage Federation and the Motor Vehicle Dismantlers Association of Great Britain suggest that 2,500 to 3,000 companies employing 20,000 to 30,000 people may be involved, but as the House of Commons Library says, it is difficult to estimate exactly how many companies will be affected. I notice that, between them, the two trade organisations represent about 325 of the estimated 2,500 to 3,000 companies involved. There is no way of knowing how they have made those estimates. The trade organisations cover quite a small proportion of the total number of operators.
Can the Under-Secretary of State help us a bit on that? Is not one of the major problems with assessing the size of the industry the fact that many vehicle and car repairers will undertake a small amount of salvage work when it presents itself? Their main business is car repair, but if there is an opportunity to salvage parts, they will.
We could do with an assurance from the Under-Secretary of State—the point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield—that the registration provisions will be supported by an effective enforcement regime. In answer to the consultation, the Motor Vehicle Dismantlers Association of Great Britain felt strongly that the targets for fewer vehicle thefts could be achieved only if enforcement was effective. Does the Minister agree that, if registration is not fully enforced, there is a risk that some small operators will comply but that others will not, putting the responsible operators at a competitive disadvantage?
The Government have so far said that enforcement will be by the police, that the costs, which they estimate, thanks to the Association of Chief Police Officers, at £110,000, will be absorbed and that enforcement will form part of routine investigations. As the Home Secretary knows, £110,000 is not much money when it comes to providing police officers to undertake duties—it is about four police officers fully engaged for a year. Is the Minister seriously saying that, if there are 2,500, 3,000 or even 7,500 businesses, four police officers fully engaged for one year will be adequate to police the registration scheme and inspections? It seems to me that that is not a lot of money to conduct such an exercise. If regulation is not effective, some people—honest, genuine motor vehicle salvage operators—will lose out.
Opposition Members take Government pledges on action in such matters with a pinch of salt. The fact is that we need police officers if we are to enforce regulations. We know that the Government's record on police numbers is deplorable. Police numbers are down by 3,000, and there are 5,000 fewer special constables. In this debate, we have also heard quoted the Police Federation chairman's remarks on the crisis among police officers.
Just today, I received a reply from the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), telling me that, since 1997, just in London, in addition to the police stations that have been closed, 27 police stations have reduced their hours. When police numbers are stretched, will it be possible for police simply to absorb the costs of enforcing the regulations? Will there be a great headline proclaiming "Government take action on vehicle crime", but very little action? I ask the Minister to tell us what work will be done for £110,000. How many police hours and visits will that provide? What enforcement will that sum make possible? It is not at all clear to the Opposition that that sum is adequate.

Mr. Miller: I accept the hon. Gentleman's comments on those figures. In my own constituency, for example, a police station is no longer manned in the evenings. The problem, however, is that such decisions are of course for chief constables. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the matter of station coverage should be dealt with by the Home Secretary?

Mr. Heald: The key point is that the reason why chief constables make those decisions—

Mr. Miller: No.

Mr. Heald: This is the answer. The reason chief constables make those decisions is that the Government, in their first years in office, have underfunded them and spent the money on other things. The fact is that, if we are to solve those problems, we need a change.

Mr. Straw: So why was it that, between 1992 and 1997–98, 75 police stations were closed in North Yorkshire, which covers the constituency, among others, of the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Heald: I am always very happy to answer the Home Secretary in my own way. In the Conservative years, there was never a year in which the number of police constables decreased. As the National Audit Office has made clear, under this Government, that trend has been completely reversed.
I am not privy to the reason why a chief constable closes a particular police station in a particular place. I do not know what happened in North Yorkshire. However, I can tell the Home Secretary that 1 do know, from talking to police officers across the country, that they want to do a job of high-visibility policing and that they want to have open police stations, which he is failing to provide. If he is happy that, during his period in office, 27 police stations in London have reduced their hours and other police stations in London have closed, he should not be. We need a visible presence on the streets of London if we are to do the job. It is not good enough that a police presence is visible on the streets only when the Home Secretary is there.
Does the Minister agree that there are concerns about the effect of registration on the availability of salvage services? We have heard much in this debate about the rash of abandoned vehicles across the country. If the effect of registration and record keeping is that small operators regard them simply as Government-created hurdles that they are not prepared to jump, would not one of the primary losers be those who wish an end to the rash of abandoned vehicles? Is there not a risk that the cost to vehicle owners of salvage disposal will rise, leading to more cars being abandoned in public places? What effect is the Bill likely to have on the cost of vehicle removal to councils and the police? If more cars are abandoned, will not that lead to a reduction in the amount of recycling taking place? I know that the Minister considers that matter important.
Will the Minister tell us the case for universal registration? Would it not be possible instead to employ a light touch on the tiller and introduce measures to bar those who transgress from operating—and, perhaps, improve record keeping and police powers—without insisting that every small car repairer who might want to do a couple of salvages a year must be registered in this way?
Is the relationship between the regulatory regimes important—a point made by the hon. Member for Upminster? Given the nine regulatory regimes proposed in the Bill, there could come a point at which some business men might decide that all that regulation was too much for them. Scrap metal dealers already have to register under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. Some salvage operators already have to be licensed or registered

under the European directive on end-of-life vehicles. The Bill proposes nine other forms of regulation. Is there some way of simplifying the scheme? What is the Minister's view on the relationship between all these regulatory approaches? Is it not a bit of a mess? Should he not have found a way of achieving these aims more simply?
Number plates have been much discussed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was very keen that we should not end up with a system such as the one in Sweden, which has one supplier for the entire country. Obviously, it would be good if we could ensure that false plates were not available to criminals. Some of the worst criminals use plates that do not belong to a vehicle to commit crimes without being detected. Every other European country has a tougher regime than ours, so we welcome the proposals to deal with the problems relating to number plates.
The form that number plates will take, under the regulations, has also been discussed. In other countries, counties, cantons, and Länder are represented on number plates. However, we have been told that the only symbol to be permitted in this country is the European Union symbol. What is the logic of that? The Home Secretary promised that the Minister would give us an answer on this matter. Why cannot we have the Union flag, the cross of St. George, or the Welsh dragon—symbols that relate to a smaller area? Surely the purpose of the measure is to ensure that number plates are more distinctive, easier to identify and more difficult to forge.
I have one or two points on the ability of the police to undertake certain other duties. No one in the House will disagree with measures that will allow the funding for a speed camera to be placed somewhere useful, such as in a hotspot or a place where numerous complaints have been made about speeding. However, concerns have been expressed that such measures could introduce something of a stealth tax. Speed cameras could be positioned everywhere, with the parameters for camera use set at very low levels. That could become a way for the Government to raise revenue by the back door—an area in which they are uniquely competent. Will the Minister reassure us that the measure will be properly targeted?
Reference was made to designing out crime. A case was made for improved car security, better door locks, better glazing, better immobilisers, and improved car park security. Can the Minister assure us that he is doing something about that, and that it is not all just talk? One of the task group's recommendations was that action should be taken on measures to design out crime.
The Conservative party achieved a huge fall in vehicle crime between 1993 and 1997—it went down by 27 per cent. We support initiatives that will genuinely cut car crime further. The Bill introduces measures that may be useful, but simply introducing laws will not stop crime. As so many right hon. and hon. Members have said, enforcement is important. A Government who have cut police numbers, let out 300 car thieves under the early release scheme, and introduced a whole raft of regulation must be suspect in this respect. So let us have a clear pledge from the Minister as to exactly what enforcement is to be provided. Is it just £110,000 worth? The worst thing would be to raise expectations without providing adequate enforcement. That would let down the public


and the honest motor vehicle salvage operators. It is not what the House wants. So let us see firm action, but let us ensure also that there is firm enforcement.
Overall, the Government's problem is that they talk a great deal. There is a lot of rhetoric, but precious little delivery. We want to see a Government in power with the will to tackle crime. It will be a Conservative Government, and that day is not far away.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): This has been a long and, on the whole, interesting debate, with an exceptionally large number of questions for me to deal with in my winding-up speech. I calculated that there were between 30 and 40 before the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) spoke, and he has just asked another 20. I mean to answer them all, if possible. Some questions I shall respond to as I comment on the various contributions to the debate, and others in the course of my substantive speech. I shall, of course, be responding to the questions of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire.
I turn first to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), my former representative on Lambeth council. The hon. Gentleman made an exceptionally long speech. I might even say that it was excruciatingly long, but I am not in a mood to provoke the hon. Gentleman, who needs little excuse to leap to his feet. His speech ranged from the wildly general to the highly particular. As Madam Deputy Speaker said, Mr. Speaker, most of his points were more appropriate to the Committee stage. As far as I am able to identify the issues of priority to the hon. Gentleman in his lengthy performance, I shall endeavour to deal with them.
On safety cameras, the hon. Gentleman, predictably, had the gall to produce the familiar canard—if I might adopt the model of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—of a stealth tax. His sidekick, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, made the same allegation. We heard about rich pickings from unsuspecting motorists. The speed limit is the speed limit, and a red light is a red light. If this is a tax, it is a tax on those who break the law. Are we to understand that the Opposition's tax guarantee would mean lower fines for crime?

Mr. Miller: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hill: If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will not because I have an awful lot to cover and awfully little time in which to do so.
The hon. Member for Buckingham and many of his colleagues made much of the issue of police numbers. Although enforcement of the regulations applying to the salvage industry will fall to the police, much of the day-to-day scrutiny will fall to local authorities, probably in the form of trading standards officers. Local authorities will have responsibility for processing applications to be entered on a register. They will have discretion to refuse or cancel registration—a point effectively made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birningham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe).
The measure will allow local authorities to close down salvage operators about whose activities there are serious questions. The new arrangements will act as a deterrent

on questionable operators. What is more, ACPO—the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland—is one of the Bill's greatest supporters. ACPO was fully involved in VCRAT and was consulted about all elements of the Bill.
The purpose of the Bill is to reduce vehicle crime; it will provide the greatest scrutiny of the salvage industry and a greater deterrent to rogue salvage operators. If vehicle crime is reduced by as much as we think it will be, police resources will be freed up for better enforcement—as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) correctly observed.
I shall deal with some of the particular issues raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham. He and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) asked why registered salvage dealers will be treated differently from non-registered dealers. The answer is that all salvage dealers will have to be registered—that is made clear in clause 1, which makes it an offence not to be registered. If the police believe that someone is operating as a salvage dealer without being registered, they can enter premises with a warrant. Greater safeguards, by way of a warrant, are needed for unregistered premises as there would be only a suspicion that the person was operating as an unregistered dealer. By virtue of the fact that dealers are registered, they know that the police can enter at any time—they have signed up to that.
The hon. Member for Buckingham also asked about V5s—the registration documents. He said that currently, if a request for a V5 is made, the DVLA notifies the police if the vehicle is supposed to have been crushed or broken up. That is true. The Bill adds strength to that practice; it makes provision for a refusal to issue a V5 if the DVLA is not satisfied that the vehicle for which the V5 is sought is the registered vehicle. The vehicle will have to pass a vehicle identity test before a V5 will be issued.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether vehicle identity numbers—VINs—would be included on the plate. That is rather a detailed point, but in the spirit of glasnost, I am willing to respond to it. That provision will be introduced by order. We shall hold consultations about what is to be included—VINs may not be included as it has been suggested that they might help ringers; it is more likely to be a manufacturer's mark, so that the police can trace the maker of the plate.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be consultations before the introduction of the provisions. Yes, there will be consultations. We have already consulted industry and will do so again before the introduction of secondary legislation—that will, incidentally, be by means of negative resolutions.
We shall issue guidance notes on number plates and salvage, and shall hold consultations on the matter. In his ever-inquisitive way, the hon. Gentleman asked why there is no provision for restitution if the names of number plate suppliers are mistakenly removed from the register. There should be no need for such a provision, as only a genuine cessation of trade will result in de-registration. The operator will not be removed from the register without notice; he will be notified prior to any de-registration and will thus have the opportunity to make representations if he has not ceased trading.
Finally—although I hope to cover other points made by the hon. Gentleman in due course—[HON. MEMBERS: "Keep going".] I have no hesitation whatever about


keeping going—nor any problems in doing so. The hon. Gentleman asserted that the Federation of Small Businesses was opposed to the statutory regulation of number plates. That is not true. I am holding a letter that shows that the FSB welcomes the measures. In a letter sent to the Government on 11 December, the transport spokesman for the FSB states:
The FSB welcomes the decision that the Secretary of State for Transport should hold the proposed register of number plate suppliers … The FSB has never opposed the Government's efforts to combat vehicle crime by controlling the supply of number plates.
After that lengthy aside, I now turn to the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green. I am grateful for the welcome that he extended to the measure. His was a wide-ranging and highly knowledgeable speech, as we would expect from the vice-chairman of the European secure vehicle alliance. We shall want to study his remarks carefully, because there is much food for thought in them.
My hon. Friend asked about counterfeit plates. A registered supplier will not be guilty of an offence if he inadvertently supplies a plate to someone who is not entitled to it—but again, that is a detail that would perhaps more appropriately be dealt with in Committee.
The speech by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) was characteristically reasonable and well informed, and drew on his wide experience in civil engineering and transport consultancy. I am grateful that he, too, gave the Bill a broad welcome. Clearly, he had a number of ideas for improving it, which we shall, of course, be ready to consider with an open mind in Committee.
The hon. Gentleman asked several questions, which I shall try to deal with later, but he also asked specifically about costs, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill). We have already consulted local authorities and business about costs, but the provisions will be introduced through secondary legislation, and we shall be happy to consult further; indeed, we have promised the industry that we shall do so. I hope that that is at least some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman.
I now come to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), the first of a cabal of lawyers who participated in the debate—a prospect that I had anticipated with some foreboding, but in fact, I was grateful for their eminently reasonable contributions and support.
My hon. Friend made a learned and supportive speech, and he made an interesting point, in connection with the proposed sharing of the motor insurance database, about wider sharing of information in the interests of road safety. I imagine that we are likely to hear more about that in Committee.
I pay tribute to the campaigning work on safety cameras that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford has done. We all remember his Adjournment debate earlier this year. He asked whether the experience of the eight pilot schemes had encouraged us to go for a national extension of safety cameras, and the answer is yes. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, the evidence so far is of a very significant 20 per cent. reduction in road accidents.
My hon. Friend was right to condemn the facile attacks on those proposals by people who call them a stealth tax. The excellent example of Staffordshire shows the clear benefits and the saving of lives brought about by an effective safety carnera network.

Mr. Miller: All the, data available show that, as well as the pain and suffering for the bereaved families, every death on the roads costs the country more than £1 million, so does my hon. Friend agree that it is nonsense to talk about a stealth tax? The truth is the reverse: such an investment will save both money and lives.

Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; as a leading member of RoadPeace, he speaks with knowledge and passion, and we are grateful to him for contribution on this subject.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) for her warm support of the Bill. She described Plymouth's impressive record in reducing car crime as a result of an effective partnership between the police, the local authority and other agencies, in the form of a community safety partnership.
My hon. Friend also asked a number of questions that I hope to deal with later. Obviously, in her we have another willing member of the Standing Committee; I admire her commitment.
I now turn to the long speech made by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). I do not talk of pressed men in this context, but until late in the debate, his promised to be the only speech that we would hear from the Conservative Back Benches. In the event, we heard only three speeches from Conservative Members—a telling comment on the low priority that they attach to vehicle crime, for all their bluster on the subject and their ludicrous claims to represent the party of law and order.
Notwithstanding the perhaps excessive length of the contribution of the hon. Member for Lichfield, he made several interesting and thoughtful points. He asked a specific question about rural crime, and I should point out that, according to the British crime survey, for every crime in rural areas, there are two crimes in urban areas and four in the inner cities. Those are the figures for crime in general, although the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the pattern for vehicle crime is less clear—the urban-rural distinction is less marked.
If I may say so, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) piggy backed on the speech of the hon. Member for Lichfield in asking about data sharing and data protection. He asked whether it will be necessary to go to Europe to secure a derogation from the motor insurers database provision.

Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hill: If the hon. Gentleman will wait just a second and allow me to finish the point.

Mr. Heald: The Home Secretary said that the Minister would answer the question about flags on number plates.

Mr. Hill: I am coming to that. If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall deal with that.
On whether we will need to go to Europe to get a derogation from the MID provision, the answer is no. The EU directive on data protection and the Data Protection Act 1998 allow exemptions from the data protection principles for disclosures and data sharing where necessary for the prevention and detection of crime—of course, that applies to the Bill.
I now turn to the well adumbrated issue of the Union flag on number plates. It is important that number plates remain uncluttered and easily legible, particularly because they need to be read quickly by safety cameras or people reporting crimes. The Europlate, which incorporates the 12 stars with the national identity of the member state below, will be optional for vehicles registered in the United Kingdom from September 2001. Motorists will not be allowed, however, to place other distinguishing signs on the number plates for the reasons that I have given. I agreed with the hon. Member for Lichfield when he said that we have dealt more than enough with flags of any description, so I propose to draw a line under that issue.
I turn briefly to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), who spoke with authority and from personal experience about car theft. She rightly drew attention to the greater impact of car theft on those on low incomes. She spoke powerfully in condemnation of those who drive without insurance, whom she called a menace on the road. I am most grateful to her for welcoming the Bill.
I turn to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). Like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton, he spoke about the benefits of community partnerships in reducing crime locally. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North, he highlighted the severity of vehicle crime for the less well-off in society. I am grateful to him for his support for the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill)—another highly knowledgeable contribution from another solicitor—made a powerful point in saying that, although we need to take a cautious approach, further regulation is clearly justified in this case. I am grateful to him for his support for the Bill.
The hon. Member for Poole made a typically rational and brief speech, for which the House is grateful. He raised several interesting points, which I am sure we shall eagerly pursue in Committee. I turn finally to the speech of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). He also made a typical speech, in which he bounced off the contents of the Bill as he perused them in the Chamber. I urge the House to give its whole-hearted support to the measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — Vehicle Crimes Bill (Programme)

Mr. Hill: I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Vehicles (Crime) Bill:

Standing Committee

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 23rd January 2001.

3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.

The motion includes the provision that the Bill's Committee stage will finish by 23 January. That has been agreed by both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats.

Timetabling is eminently sensible and has benefits for those on both sides of the House. Above all, it will ensure that prime slots are given for consideration of the main parts of the Bill, and that will allow adequate opportunity to focus debate on the really important issues.

Mr. Heald: The Minister may have inadvertently made a mistake by suggesting that the official Opposition are happy with the programme motion. We are not.

Mr. Hill: I fear that the hon. Gentleman has inadvertently indicated his ignorance of the arrangements that have been made through the usual channels. My clear information is that there has been agreement on both sides of the House that the Bill's Committee stage will finish by 23 January.

Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to go into the deliberations of the usual channels, particularly when the issues involved are contested?

Mr. Speaker: This is a strict programme motion, and I expect each and every Member to stick to the terms of the debate. I was slightly distracted and did not quite hear what the Minister said, but I am listening now.

Mr. Hill: To be entirely accurate, Mr. Speaker, I did not go into the detailed deliberations of the usual channels. I merely alluded to the conclusions of those deliberations. The confusion between those on the Opposition Front Bench and those in the Opposition Whips Office is typical of the entirely shambolic condition that the Conservative party is in at the moment.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: There is no confusion. The point was made perfectly clear by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). No agreement has been reached on the timetable motion.

Mr. Miller: Another Tory U-turn.

Mr. Hill: As my hon. Friend says, that is another Tory U-turn.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have good order. If Members think that the Minister is incorrect or


misinformed—[Interruption.] Perhaps, they do. My suggestion is that we wait until I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. He can put the record straight.

Mr. Hill: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I have no intention of apologising for the statement that I made. The fact of the matter is that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) agreed in good faith with his opposite number about this matter. It was reported to me in that sense, and, as far as I am aware, that is the position.
Let me explain the reasons for timetabling the Bill. Timetabling is particularly suitable for this Bill. It is a medium-sized Bill of 45 clauses and we shall need to time to debate the clauses of greatest interest to ensure that they receive thorough scrutiny. That includes the clauses on the substantial parts of the Bill: regulating the motor salvage industry, controlling the supply of number plates and the clauses, such as those using the receipts of magistrates courts to fund more safety cameras, that raised questions on Second Reading and in the media.
Some clauses will need less discussion. I am thinking of those at the end of the Bill—clauses 38 to 45—which cover the general and administrative provisions typical of most Bills. By suggesting an end date of 23 January, we will allow sufficient time in Committee and it will be able to start its consideration soon after the new year. It goes without saying that the programming sub-committee will consider the detailed timetable and it may decide that it is necessary to sit more frequently than usual. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Heald: Three weeks ago, we had the week of the guillotine—proceedings on the Freedom of Information Bill, the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, the Disqualifications Bill and the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill were all guillotined.
The Government have set a pattern. It is a disgrace that there have been 25 guillotines in three years. The Minister has the effrontery to say that the arrangements have been agreed through the usual channels, but it is unprecedented to intervene in those discussions in such a way. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) is the other Whip involved and he denies that an agreement was reached.
The Conservative party believes that such motions are wrong. The Government should not stipulate how long a Committee can sit before they know the scope of the debate. The Minister is pointing his finger, but, as he admitted, 50 issues were raised in the debate, and there is a huge scope for discussion in Committee. How on earth is it possible to programme the sittings of a Committee before Second Reading? That is nonsense. The 10 Committee sittings that are proposed in the programme motion are inadequate. We need many more than that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) spoke for one hour and 19 minutes, and every point was concise. The issues that he raised are relevant not only to the Bill's broad thrust, but to detailed discussions in Committee. The same is true of the contributions that were made by hon. Members on both

sides of the House. Serious matters have been raised. It is unacceptable to table, ahead of Second Reading, a motion that allows wholly inadequate time for discussion in Committee. It is clear that eight or 10 sittings will be inadequate.
I have referred to the bread of the issues, but it is worth mentioning that Member after Member highlighted important issues. The Government were asked how the law will operate with regard to the retrospective fitting of immobilisers and how Home Office reports and the Bill have dealt with research into the use of cars in crime. Hon. Members asked whether the powers of search should discriminate against one vehicle dismantler in favour of another. Why should the registered person have a harsher regime imposed on him than the non-registered person? The Government were also asked whether the DVLA is able to refuse to produce documents for a vehicle even when it is known that it has been dismantled.
Many issues were raised about the way in which cancellations will work. What will be the period for cancellation? What recompense might be made available if people are falsely deregistered? The Government were asked whether the inclusion of VINs on the plates was the way forward, or whether there would be a different method of identification. There was concern that the European convention on human rights might stop vehicles being returned to the owner after they have been written off.
The views of the Association of British Insurers were challenged. The Government were asked whether it was right to reallocate the money from traffic cameras in a way that was akin to taxation. There were many questions about the costs on business. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise and conversation in the Chamber.

Mr. Heald: The Bill has raised a substantial range of issues. Many of the questions are important to business. There is concern that a balance should be struck in the regulation of motor salvage operators. Is it right to impose burdens on the smallest car repairer who might choose to salvage two vehicles a year? Is it right that he should be subject to the same regulation as a large company that deals with thousands of vehicles? Will we be able to ensure that abandoned vehicles are collected by motor salvage operators if we over-regulate them? What are the costs involved? We did not even know how many motor salvage operators there were.
We must consider enforcement. The Motor Vehicles Dismantlers Association has made it clear that the regulation will work only if it is rigorously enforced. Honest operators will register and follow all the procedures in the Bill, but those involved in crime will not do so and they will gain a competitive advantage. It is important that the balance of regulation should be properly considered. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made salient points, as he so often does, and teased out some of the difficulties in the regulation.
Hon. Members questioned the practicability of the vehicle inspection regime, which has been questioned by industry sources. The Bill contains nine sets of regulations, and it was described by one hon. Member as a sea of regulation. My hon. Friend the Member for


Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) pointed out that assurances are always needed when there is a risk of legislation being gold-plated.

Mr. David Maclean: Surely one of the iniquities of this heinous programme motion, which will provide only five days of consideration of this complex Bill, is that it will deprive us of the chance to table new clauses. It is inevitable that, in considering such a Bill, the industry and all those who are interested, including the police, will spot problems, but there will be no time to table new clauses for consideration at the end of the Bill because there will be only five days in Committee.

Mr. Heald: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Bill gives rise to a wide range of issues, and a number of bodies have an interest. The Federation of Small Businesses is most concerned about the measure, but other industry representatives take a different view. Each and every one of the 26 bodies that responded to the consultation should have the chance not only to suggest a new clause at the beginning of the consideration but to see how the debate unfolds and to respond accordingly.
In a recent Standing Committee, my right hon. Friend and I found that it was only after about 10 sittings that we started to discover the full detail and scope of the Government's intentions. That was largely because we received representations about the Bill from outside bodies and because many members of the Committee happened to have experience of Home Office matters and were able to tease out some of the difficulties. Over time, that led to better amendments and new clauses being tabled in Committee and, at a later stage, to the Government taking steps to improve the Bill. It is often a mistake for the House to rush through legislation, rather than allowing it to go through the proper stages and be given adequate time.
The Labour party is associated with the idea that modernisation means less time for debate. If the Government were honest, they would admit that it is extremely bad for their image. Apart from demonstrating contempt for the history of this place, marginalising Parliament and ensuring that there is no proper scrutiny of legislation are not actions that any true democrat could seek to justify.
The Opposition do not disagree with the broad principles in the Bill, but we are entitled to play our traditional role and to scrutinise it in great detail, if we think it necessary. In this case, debate has demonstrated that there is a range of issues to be considered, and the time provided in the programme motion is inadequate. We ask the Government to think again.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is objecting to the timetable motion before the House, or to timetabling in principle. We all know that timetabling enables us to make progress and spend time on the contentious parts of a Bill, which is what we all want to do.

Mr. Heald: I object to both. First, let me examine the principle of programming. I was a silent one—a Whip—when the House considered the Bills that became the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Scotland Act

1998. I spent a great deal of time discussing how long was needed for each group of clauses; however, it is not easy to judge what the mood of the House will be or in which direction the debate will turn. One of my objections is rooted in the fact that, on occasion, we programmed Bills in good faith and by agreement, but found that hon. Members who had a strong opinion on an issue and sensible comments to make were unable to speak in the House. Is that democracy? In my view, it is not.
At the outset, I was quite in favour of programming, because it seemed modern and I like modern things, as the hon. Lady knows—she recently praised my website in The House Magazine, so she is aware that I am not of the luddite tendency. However, I believe that in programming lies a danger to democracy. People who come here from their constituencies, perhaps with a constituency angle on a national question, do not get a chance to express it. To programme the Committee stage before Second Reading has taken place is nonsense.

Mr. Blunt: I am extremely concerned about the remark made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), that we have only to focus on the contentious issues. Issues of contention between the parties are not necessarily the ones that should be focused on. We are about making decent legislation, and we are not going to be able to put decent legislation on the statue book after only eight Committee sittings.

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a point that ties in with the comment made by our right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), which is that a certain amount of time is needed for a debate to mature and for outside bodies to arrive at an understanding of the details of the legislation. Given the range of issues involved in the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, merely to guess how long will be required is not adequate.

Mr. Maclean: A moment ago, when my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) said that we were in the business of making good legislation, Government Members chuckled. Is not the truth that, in the past few months, thousands of amendments have come through from the other place, having been made by an incompetent Government who have bashed through legislation under guillotines? Do we not face the danger that, in the other place, the Vehicles (Crime) Bill will be subjected to hundreds of amendments with which this House will be unable to deal appropriately during consideration of Lords amendments?

Mr. Heald: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Because Bill after Bill has been poorly drafted and debate in this House has been curtailed, a whole new Bill, in effect, has on occasion been drafted for consideration by the other place. We, the people who are elected to Parliament to debate the law, are short-changed in terms of debate. It simply will not do. There were 118 amendments to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, of which 77 were not debated by this House. There were 268 amendments to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, of which 47 were not debated here. There


were 666 amendments to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, of which 522 were not debated here. Is that democracy? No.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: There is a further problem, to which my hon. Friend has not yet addressed his remarks. Parts I and II of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill do not apply to Scotland, yet we could find the Committee stuffed full of Labour Members representing Scottish constituencies who can prattle on at great length without having any legitimate democratic right to do so; they might take up the time allotted, with the consequence that Members who represent English and Welsh constituencies do not have ample time in which to express their proper point of view.

Mr. Heald: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. If members of the Committee come from a different jurisdiction, it is reasonable that they will not understand the intricacies of the law in England and Wales. They do not live in those countries, and debates will take longer. I mean no disrespect in any way to Scotland or to the Scots, Mr. Speaker. We do not know until the Committee of Selection meets how many Members there will be in Committee with that disadvantage.
We already have far less time than we need. However, we do not know how much longer will be needed because the detailed circumstances of consideration in Committee are unknown. Representations as yet unknown will come from industry and will subsequently take the form of new clauses and amendments. If someone who is as succinct as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham can speak for an hour and 19 minutes on the Bill, making cogent point after cogent point eloquently and extremely effectively without trespassing on the good will of the House, we need more than 10 sittings.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The point has not yet been put that programming appears to be very much between those on the two Front Benches. What input is likely to be heard from Back Benchers on both sides of the House, either as individuals or as groups, who may be interested in a part of the Bill that the Government think is not controversial? The matter may be extremely pertinent to certain constituencies.

Mr. Heald: As ever, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One of the difficulties in programming a Committee before a Bill's Second Reading is trying to assess the mood of the House, including Back-Bench Members. When we considered the Government of Wales Bill, there were Labour Back Benchers who did not share the views of the Government. Conservative and Liberal Democrat Back Benchers had a slightly different viewpoint on certain issues. As a result, debate was extended. That was impossible to assess in advance. That is what is so wrong with the principle of programming in this way. It seems that it will happen with every Bill, and I see that as a deleterious step.

Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman is making a reasoned case, as the Opposition have a duty to do. I have no complaint about that. My

only reservation is a remark that he made about Scottish and Welsh Members. May I implore him not to follow a path that would divide the House into two kinds of Assemblies? Will he accept that this is a United Kingdom Parliament? Perhaps he would bear in mind the remarks of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who successfully opposed a ten-minute Bill that would have divided Parliament into Scottish, Welsh and English parts. We are a United Kingdom Parliament, and let us remain so.

Mr. Heald: I am sure that you would not allow me, Mr. Speaker, to go into the West Lothian question in huge detail. However, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, the legal system in Scotland is different from that in England and Wales. The issue is between two legal jurisdictions and not between England, Wales and Scotland. If someone comes from a different jurisdiction legally and he is trying to contemplate laws that may be different, with the court systems being different, it is surely fair to suggest that consideration in Committee might take a little longer.

Mr. Hogg: There is another point. An essential element of democracy is that those who make laws should be accountable to those who are affected by laws. If individuals are not affected by laws, those who represent them have no legitimate standing.

Mr. Heald: That point was eloquently made by my right hon. and learned Friend when the Bills to which I referred went through the House. I do not disagree with him, but on a programme motion it would not be right for me to discuss an aspect of principle of the West Lothian question and fair votes for England. However, it is right for me to highlight the time aspects.
The programme motion is a disgrace. It has been presented as being agreed by the official Opposition, when that is not the case. I have no doubt that that is the case. It has been presented by a Government who are making guillotining the business of the House a regular feature, and that is a denial of democracy. When we considered the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which I did not mention earlier, 675 amendments were not debated.

Mr. Michael Jack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Did he notice that, when the Minister proposed the motion, he gave an indication to the House, if I understood his words correctly, that more time might be needed? He referred to the programming sub-committee, suggesting that it might have to consider whether more time was needed. Will my hon. Friend comment on that admission from the Minister?

Mr. Heald: As ever, my right hon. Friend identifies an important point. It is interesting that, in the previous debate, the Minister was unable to answer any of the questions that I posed in my closing remarks, and several points made by my right hon. and hon. Friends were not answered, because there was not enough time.
As my right hon. Friend says, the Minister admitted that more time may have to be allowed for consideration of the Bill. Should not the hon. Gentleman do the decent thing and withdraw the programme motion? It is not right that the House should be asked to vote for a motion with which the Minister who proposed it at the Dispatch Box does not agree.
The programme motion is inadequate. The House should not be made to curtail the time during which it may debate such an important measure. There is a wide range of issues, and I ask the House to reject the programme motion.

Mr. Paul Tyler: The Minister was wrong when he introduced the motion. He did so under false pretences. He said firmly that he had the agreement of the Opposition parties. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) made it clear that the Minister did not have the support and agreement of the Conservative party, and he certainly did not have my support or that of my colleagues. I have great respect for the Minister. I hope that he is a big enough man to admit that a mistake has been made in the communication between his Whips Office and himself.
If the Minister does not believe me, let him look at the Order Paper. When there is an agreed programme motion, I put my name to it and a spokesman for the Conservative party puts his or her name to it. There is no name on the Order Paper from either of the Opposition parties. This is not an agreed programme motion.
On many occasions, my colleagues and I supported programme motions, when we believed that a realistic assessment had been made of the time necessary to assure all hon. Members that the major points would be covered. That is not the case tonight. I attended much of the debate this evening. The attendance now is higher than on Second Reading, but it is clear that hon. Members have important points to raise. It is clear that the Committee stage will be convoluted, complicated and important if we are to get the Bill right.
If the Minister means what he said about giving the House a proper opportunity to debate the issues that matter, it is the right course of action for him, having obviously unwittingly misled the House, to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Forth: This is the first opportunity that the House has had to consider the new principle that the Government have imposed on us. It is an important occasion, but there will, of course, be many others. On each occasion, the House will have a proper opportunity to consider whether it is a proper way to consider the Bill under discussion and whether to support the proposals.

Mr. Hogg: Is not one of the problems of the procedure on which we are embarking the fact that the House does not have an opportunity to amend the motion? We might think that a timetable is appropriate, but we might also conclude that much more time should be given. The defect of this procedure is that we do not have the ability to extend the time from, say, 23 January to 18 February. I make that as a suggestion.

Mr. Forth: I am not sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is right on this occasion I was under the impression that such motions are subject to amendment, but we can pursue the matter later. Suffice it to say that, on this occasion, the House of Commons must decide whether it is appropriate and proper to bind the Committee so that it has only a certain period in which to consider the Bill.
We have already seen the difficulties that can arise when it is assumed that a small, unrepresentative group of Members of Parliament, masquerading under the title, "the usual channels", can impose on the rest of the House a timetable to which it might not agree. We have seen that that is the wrong way to approach the matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) pointed out, if that is to be the mechanism with which we have to work until the House sees better and throws it out, people who are not from the usual channels should be involved so that, at the very least, there can be a degree of representation from Members of Parliament who are not in a privileged and titled position. It is important and productive that we have already seen that the Government have sought to demonstrate that the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Front Benches had signed up to the motion when, in fact, they had not.

Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is especially unsatisfactory that the Government should seek to circumscribe debate by proposing only 10 Committee sittings for the consideration of 45 clauses when, as he is aware, no fewer than nine of those clauses provide enabling powers for the Government to issue regulations? That is despite the fact that Ministers have not given any indication that they intend to provide the House or Committee members with early sight of a draft of the regulations.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is correct and he touches on another point that should not be forgotten. How can the Government decide the length of the Committee stage before Second Reading and before the House has had an opportunity to demonstrate whether the Bill is controversial and whether it includes detailed matters that require lengthy consideration by the Committee?

Mr. Hogg: It might assist my right hon. Friend to know that he is right to say that the motion is amendable. Perhaps he would like to emphasise that point. Does he agree that, when such motions are proposed in future, the proper course for Opposition Front Benchers is to table an amendment that extends the date, which we should have an opportunity to debate at length?

Mr. Forth: My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench should certainly seek to amend the motion. However, my right hon. and learned Friend, other right hon. and hon. Members and I might have our own thoughts on the matter.

Mr. Miller: If the right hon. Gentleman's assertion is right, and if Opposition Front Benchers were correct in saying that they were not in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), they could have tabled such an amendment. They chose not to, which proves that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn was correct.

Mr. Forth: No, that does not follow. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said that we disagreed in principle and in fact with the substance of the motion. We do not therefore have to try to amend it; we can simply vote against it. I hope that we will do that. I intend to do so, and to try to give hon. Members the opportunity to do that.

Mr. Maclean: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a difference in principle between the usual channels


being involved in discussions on Bills about which there is some general agreement and their involvement when the Government change Standing Orders to drive through ruthless automatic guillotine machinery? Does he agree that, in the latter case, it is inappropriate for the Opposition's usual channels to be involved?

Mr. Forth: I believe that it is inappropriate for the usual channels to be involved in anything, and I do not believe in the existence of uncontroversial Bills. Most of the worst measures that have emanated from the parliamentary process have been deemed consensual, all party and uncontroversial. They usually end up as thoroughly bad legislation because they have been so poorly scrutinised. The Government are in danger of imposing poor scrutiny on the House as a general principle. That leaves only the prospect of another place conducting proper scrutiny, with us as a subsidiary Chamber.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend comment on our Front-Bench spokesmen's remarks, which have been repeated by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)? He said that, despite the Under-Secretary's claim, the programme motion had not been agreed through the usual channels. Given that this is the first time that such a motion has been put before the House, and that the hon. Member for North Cornwall and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) say that it has not been agreed, will my right hon. Friend give the Minister time to reply to the debate, and to do the courteous and decent thing by withdrawing the motion?

Mr. Forth: I wish that that was a realistic prospect. Sadly, I do not believe that it is. In tonight's sordid episode, on the first occasion that the ghastly new mechanism that the Government have imposed on the House has been used, Ministers have given a less than truthful account of the background to the event. We have received neither a retraction nor an apology from them. That is regrettable but, sadly, typical of the Government. We are faced with an improper and inadequate response to the Second Reading debate.

Mr. John Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is even more worrying that the timetable motion may mean that the clauses that grant power to make regulations will go through all their stages without the regulations being published? Is not that an even more worrying trend?

Mr. Forth: Given the likely detailed and complex content of the regulations, and their number—we identified at least nine on Second Reading—we are unlikely to get any realistic idea of their content in time for the Committee proceedings.

Mr. Hogg: Is not there a further risk, with which my right hon. Friend is familiar, that the Bill will go to another place without being properly discussed, and return to the House with a host of amendments? They will be the subject of yet more guillotine motions, and we will thus never have an opportunity properly to discuss the Bill's provisions.

Mr. Forth: I regret that my right hon. and learned Friend is correct. The Bill contains 45 clauses; it became

clear on Second Reading that many of them are complex and controversial. They include, for example, the right of entry, powers of inspection and powers to levy fees. Yet we are allowed only five Committee days to consider the Bill, and we do not know what a Committee day will constitute.
Paragraph 3 of the motion states:
The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day …
However, we do not know whether "twice" will mean 10.30 am to 1 pm and 4 pm to 7 pm, or 10 am to 10 pm without a break. What will a Committee day comprise? Simply saying that the Committee
shall have leave to sit twice
does not tell the House how much time the Committee will have to begin consideration on that crucial first day. Although five sitting days have been allowed for, the motion does not tell us how long they will be. We are faced with a controversial, complex 45-clause Bill, but we are being asked, in effect, to sign a blank cheque, even though the Government had no idea of what the response of the House would be when they embarked on the Second Reading debate.
We teased out many questions on Second Reading and, during the winding-up speeches, the Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire that he had about 50 questions to deal with and that, probably, there were more yet to be answered. All those 50 points require detailed consideration in Committee.

Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great mischiefs here is that regulation-making powers may not even be discussed in Committee and that the regulations will all be made under the negative resolution procedure? Important regulations for an important industry could be made without any discussion taking place.

Mr. Forth: That is right. We see the potential horror of the programming measure that the Government have imposed on the House. I hope that we have none of that and reject it.

Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I feel a growing sense of unease. As one of those who, in another capacity, is required from time to time to adjudicate on matters of order, I have listened to the points made from the Opposition and Government Front Benches. I have worked over many hours with the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), and believe him to be an entirely honest and honourable man. I say that without equivocation. However, it is clear that two stories have been given—one by the Minister and another by Opposition Front Benchers. As this is the first time that such a matter has been discussed in the House in such a form, you might consider adjourning the House to allow both sides to reach an agreement and to allow either the Minister or Opposition Front Benchers to withdraw their remarks.

Mr. Speaker: Those are matters for debate. I certainly would not be inclined to adjourn the House.

Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is within my knowledge that when an agreement is


made between Front Benchers it is often communicated to the Speaker. Have you received notice of such an agreement being made?

Mr. Speaker: It is often best that the Speaker does not know about such agreements.

Mr. David Maclean: Tonight's debate has shown that an arrogant and dictatorial Government are in power—a Government so arrogant that they decided the Bill's Committee timetable before the debate on Second Reading had begun. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, the Government decided that a 45-clause Bill shall be considered in Committee for five days, or for 10 sittings, before hearing a single word of debate in the House. The Government did not care whether hon. Members on both sides or on either side of the House were concerned about the provisions, whether the Bill would go through on the nod or whether the whole House was up in arms about it. In their mind, they had already concluded that the Bill would be ruthlessly guillotined and that there would be no, time for discussion. We know why.
Over the past few months, the Government's experience has been of Bills returning from the other place with hundreds of Government amendments to them because they had been so badly drafted and because of their own incompetence. They have been humiliated over their drafting of legislation, so they have introduced an automatic guillotine system.

It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [7 November], put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of proceedings to be concluded at that hour.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 147.

Division No. 9]
[10.44 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bradshaw, Ben


Ainger, Nick
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Allen, Graham
Buck, Ms Karen


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Burden, Richard


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Burgon, Colin


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Butler, Mrs Christine


Atherton, Ms Candy
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Banks, Tony
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Battle, John
Cann, Jamie


Bayley, Hugh
Caplin, Ivor


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Casale, Roger


Begg, Miss Anne
Caton, Martin


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cawsey, Ian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Bennett, Andrew F
Chaytor, David


Benton, Joe
Clapham, Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Berry, Roger
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Betts, Clive



Blears, Ms Hazel
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Blizzard, Bob
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Borrow, David
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Clelland, David





Clwyd, Ann
Hoyle, Lindsay


Coaker, Vernon
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Colman, Tony
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cooper, Yvette
Hurst, Alan


Corbett, Robin
Hutton, John


Corston, Jean
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cousins, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Cox, Tom
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cranston, Ross
Jamieson, David


Crausby, David
Jenkins, Brian


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cummings, John



Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)



Dawson, Hilton



Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Denham, John
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dobbin, Jim
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Doran, Frank
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dowd, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Drew, David
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kemp, Fraser


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Edwards, Huw
Khabra, Piara S


Efford, Clive
Kidney, David


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ennis, Jeff
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Etherington, Bill
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fisher, Mark
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lammy, David


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Lepper, David


Flint, Caroline
Leslie, Christopher


Flynn, Paul
Levitt, Tom


Follett, Barbara
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Linton, Martin


Foulkes, George
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Galloway, George
Love, Andrew


Gapes, Mike
McAvoy, Thomas


Gardiner, Barry
McCabe, Steve


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gerrard, Neil
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Gibson, Dr Ian



Gilroy, Mrs Linda



Godsiff, Roger
McDonagh, Siobhain


Goggins, Paul
Macdonald, Calum


Golding, Mrs Llin
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McNamara, Kevin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McNulty, Tony


Grocott, Bruce
MacShane, Denis


Grogan, John
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hain, Peter
McWalter, Tony


Hanson, David
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mallaber, Judy


Healey, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hendrick, Mark
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hepburn, Stephen
Martlew, Eric


Hesford, Stephen
Maxton, John


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Meale, Alan


Hill, Keith 
Merron, Gillian


Hinchliffe, David
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hoey, Kate
Miller, Andrew


Hope, Phil
Mitchell, Austin


Hopkins, Kelvin
Moran, Ms Margaret


Howells. Dr Kim
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)






Morley, Elliot
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Soley, Clive



Spellar, John


Mountford, Kali
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Steinberg, Gerry


Mudie, George
Stevenson, George


Mullin, Chris
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stinchcombe, Paul


Norris, Dan
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


O'Hara, Eddie
Stringer, Graham


Olner, Bill
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Neill, Martin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Organ, Mrs Diana
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pearson, Ian



Perham, Ms Linda
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pike, Peter L
Temple-Morris, Peter


Plaskitt, James
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pond, Chris
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pope, Greg
Timms, Stephen


Pound, Stephen
Tipping, Paddy


Powell, Sir Raymond
Todd, Mark


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Touhig, Don


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Truswell, Paul


Primarolo, Dawn
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Prosser, Gwyn
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Purchase, Ken
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Quinn, Lawrie
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rammell, Bill
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rapson, Syd
Vis, Dr Rudi


Raynsford, Nick
Walley, Ms Joan


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Ward, Ms Claire


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Wareing, Robert N


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Watts, David



White, Brian


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Wicks, Malcolm


Rooney, Terry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)



Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Roy, Frank
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Ruddock, Joan
Wills, Michael


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Winnick, David


Ryan, Ms Joan
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sawford, Phil
Woodward, Shaun


Sedgemore, Brian
Woolas, Phil


Sheerman, Barry
Worthington, Tony


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Singh, Marsha
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Mr. Mike Hall and


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Mr. Kevin Hughes.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James



Baldry, Tony
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Beith, Rt Hon A J



Bercow, John
Chope, Christopher


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clappison, James


Blunt, Crispin
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Boswell, Tim



Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Collins, Tim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Brazier, Julian
Cotter, Brian


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Cran, James


Browning, Mrs Angela
Curry, Rt Hon David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Burns, Simon
Duncan, Alan





Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mates, Michael


Evans, Nigel
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Fabricant, Michael
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Fallon, Michael
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Fearn, Ronnie
Moss, Malcolm


Flight, Howard
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Öpik, Lembit


Fraser, Christopher
Ottaway, Richard


Gale, Roger
Page, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Paice, James


Gibb, Nick
Pickles, Eric


Gidley, Sandra
Prior, David


Gill, Christopher
Randall, John


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Rendel, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Robathan, Andrew


Gray, James
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Green, Damian
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Greenway, John
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Grieve, Dominic
Ruffley, David


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
St Aubyn, Nick


Hammond, Philip
Sanders, Adrian


Harris, Dr Evan
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hawkins, Nick
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hayes, John
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Heald, Oliver
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Spicer, Sir Michael


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Streeter, Gary


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Stunell, Andrew


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Swayne, Desmond


Hughes Simon (Southwark N)
Syms, Robert


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Jenkin, Bernard
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Key, Robert
Taylor, Sir Teddy


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)



Tonge, Dr Jenny


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Townend, John


Kirkwood, Archy
Tredinnick, David


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Trend, Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Tyler, Paul


Lansley, Andrew
Tyrie, Andrew


Letwin, Oliver
Waterson, Nigel


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Webb, Steve


Lidington, David
Wells, Bowen


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Livsey, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Llwyd, Elfyn
Wilkinson, John


Loughton, Tim
Willetts, David


Luff, Peter
Willis, Phil


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wilshire, David


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert



McLoughlin, Patrick
Tellers for the Noes:


Madel, Sir David
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown


Malins, Humfrey
and


Maples, John
Mr. Peter Atkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply to the Vehicles (Crime) Bill:

Standing Committee

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday

3. The standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.

Orders of the Day — VEHICLES (CRIME) BELL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a)any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of the Act, and
(b)any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other Act. —[Mr. Pope.]

The House divided: Ayes 327, Noes 114.

Division No. 10]
[10.57 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clelland, David


Allen, Graham
Clwyd, Ann


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Coaker, Vernon


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Colman, Tony


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cooper Yvette


Atherton, Ms Candy
Corbett Robin


Banks, Tony
Corston, Jean


Barnes, Harry
Cotter, Brian


Barron, Kevin
Cousins, Jim


Battle, John
Cox, Tom


Bayley, Hugh
Cranston, Ross


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Crausby, David


Begg, Miss Anne
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cummings, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bennett, Andrew F
Darvill, Keith


Benton, Joe
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Berry, Roger
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Betts, Clive
Dawson, Hilton


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dean Mrs Janet


Blizzard, Bob
Denham, John


Borrow, David
Dismore, Andrew


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dobbin, Jim


Bradshaw, Ben
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Doran, Frank


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Dowd, Jim


Buck, Ms Karen
Drew, David


Burden, Richard
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Burgon, Colin
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Edwards, Huw


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Efford, Clive


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Ennis, Jeff


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Etherington, Bill



Fearn, Ronnie


Cann, Jamie
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Caplin, Ivor
Fisher, Mark


Casale, Roger
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Caton, Martin
Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma


Cawsey, Ian
Flint, Caroline


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Flynn, Paul


Chaytor, David
Follett, Barbara


Clapham, Michael
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Foulkes, George



Galloway, George


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gapes, Mike





Gardiner, Barry
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Linton, Martin


Gerrard, Neil
Livsey, Richard


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gidley, Sandra
Llwyd, Elfyn


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Love, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
McAvoy, Thomas


Goggins, Paul
McCabe, Steve


Golding, Mrs Llin
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Macdonald, Calum


Grocott, Bruce
McIsaac, Shona


Grogan, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hain, Peter
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Hanson, David
McNamara, Kevin


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McNulty, Tony


Harris, Dr Evan
MacShane, Denis


Healey, John
Mactaggart, Fiona


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
McWalter, Tony


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hendrick, Mark
Mallaber, Judy


Hepburn, Stephen
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hesford, Stephen
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hill, Keith 
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hinchliffe, David
Martlew, Eric


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Maxton, John


Hoey, Kate
Meale, Alan


Hope, Phil
Merron, Gillian


Hopkins, Kelvin
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Howells, Dr Kim
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Miller, Andrew


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Mitchell, Austin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hurst, Alan
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hutton, John
Morley, Elliot


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Illsley, Eric
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)



Jamieson, David
Mountford, Kali


Jenkins, Brian
Mudie, George


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Mullin, Chris


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)



Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Norris, Dan


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Olner, Bill



O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Öpik, Lembit


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pearson, Ian


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Perham, Ms Linda


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pickthall, Colin


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pike, Peter L


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Plaskitt, James


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pond, Chris


Kemp, Fraser
Pope, Greg


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pound, Stephen


Khabra, Piara S
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kidney, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Primarolo, Dawn


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Prosser, Gwyn


Kirkwood, Archy
Purchase, Ken


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Quinn, Lawrie


Lammy, David
Rammell, Bill


Lepper, David
Rapson, Syd


Leslie, Christopher
Raynsford, Nick


Levitt, Tom
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)






Rendel, David
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Temple-Morris, Peter


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rooney, Terry
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Timms, Stephen


Rowlands, Ted
Tipping, Paddy


Roy, Frank
Todd, Mark


Ruddock, Joan
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Touhig, Don


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Truswell, Paul


Ryan, Ms Joan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Sanders, Adrian
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sawford, Phil
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Sheerman, Barry
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Singh, Marsha
Tyler, Paul


Skinner, Dennis
Vis, Dr Rudi


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Watts, David


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Webb, Steve


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
White, Brian


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Soley, Clive
Wicks, Malcolm


Spellar, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis



Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stevenson, George
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Willis, Phil


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wills, Michael


Stinchcombe, Paul
Winnick, David


Stoate, Dr Howard
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Woodward, Shaun


Stringer, Graham
Woolas, Phil


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Worthington, Tony


Stunell, Andrew
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Ayes:



Mr. Mike Hall and


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Mr. Kevin Hughes.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Flight, Howard


Amess, David
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Fraser, Christopher


Baldry, Tony
Gale, Roger


Bercow, John
Garnier, Edward


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gibb, Nick


Blunt, Crispin
Gill, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Gray, James


Brazier, Julian
Green, Damian


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Grieve, Dominic


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Butterfill, John
Hammond, Philip


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hawkins, Nick



Hayes, John


Chope, Christopher
Heald, Oliver


Clappison, James
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael



Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Collins, Tim
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan, Alan
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Jenkin, Bernard


Evans, Nigel
Key, Robert


Fabricant, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)





Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Ruffley, David


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
St Aubyn, Nick


Lansley, Andrew
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Letwin, Oliver
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Spicer, Sir Michael


Lidington, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Streeter, Gary


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Swayne, Desmond


Loughton, Tim
Syms, Robert


Luff, Peter
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Townend, John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tredinnick, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Trend, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Tyrie, Andrew


Mates, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Wells, Bowen


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Moss, Malcolm
Whittingdale, John


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Ottaway, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Page, Richard
Willetts, David


Paice, James
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Pickles, Eric
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Prior, David
Yeo, Tim


Randall, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robathan, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
and


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Mr. Peter Atkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — VEHICLES (CRIME) BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the charging of fees in connection with a registration scheme for registration plate suppliers;
(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of the Act.—[Mr. McNulty.]

The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 110.

Division No. 11]
[11.10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Berry, Roger


Ainger, Nick
Betts, Clive


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Blears, Ms Hazel


Allen, Graham
Blizzard, Bob


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Borrow, David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Bradshaw, Ben


Atherton, Ms Candy
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Banks, Tony
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Barnes, Harry
Buck, Ms Karen


Barron, Kevin
Burden, Richard


Battle, John
Burgon, Colin


Bayley, Hugh
Butler, Mrs Christine


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Begg, Miss Anne
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)



Bennett, Andrew F
Cann, Jamie


Benton, Joe
Caplin, Ivor


Bermingham, Gerald
Casale, Roger






Caton, Martin
Hanson, David


Cawsey, Ian
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Harris, Dr Evan


Chaytor, David
Healey, John


Clapham, Michael
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hendrick, Mark



Hepburn, Stephen


Clark Paul (Gillingham)
Hesford, Stephen


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hinchliffe, David


Clelland, David
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clwyd, Ann
Hoey, Kate


Coaker, Vernon
Hope, Phil


Colman, Tony
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cooper, Yvette
Howells, Dr Kim


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Lindsay


Corston, Jean
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cotter, Brian
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cox, Tom
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cranston, Ross
Hurst, Alan


Crausby, David
Hutton, John


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jamieson, David


Darvill, Keith
Jenkins, Brian


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davidson, Ian
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Walwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lanelli)



Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Denham, John
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dismore, Andrew



Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Drew, David
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Edwards, Huw
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Efford, Clive
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kemp, Fraser


Ennis, Jeff
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Etherington, Bill
Khabra, Piara S


Fearn, Ronnie
Kidney, David


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fisher, Mark
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Kirkwood, Archy


Flint, Caroline
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Flynn, Paul
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Follett, Barbara
Lammy, David


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lepper, David


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Leslie, Christopher


Foulkes, George
Levitt, Tom


Galloway, George
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gapes, Mike
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Gardiner, Barry
Linton, Martin


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Livsey, Richard


Gerrard, Neil
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Llwyd, Elfyn


Gidley, Sandra
Love, Andrew


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McAvoy, Thomas


Godsiff, Roger
McCabe, Steve


Goggins, Paul
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Golding, Mrs Llin
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)



Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Macdonald, Calum


Grocott, Bruce
McIsaac, Shona


Grogan, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hain, Peter
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McNamara, Kevin





McNulty, Tony
Sawford, Phil


MacShane, Denis
Sedgemore, Brian


Mactaggart, Fiona
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McWalter, Tony
Singh, Marsha


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maxton, John
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Meale, Alan
Soley, Clive


Merron, Gillian
Spellar, John


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Miller, Andrew
Stevenson, George


Mitchell, Austin
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morley, Elliot
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stringer, Graham



Stuart, Ms Gisela


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Stunell, Andrew



Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mountford, Kali
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mudie, George



Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Norris, Dan
Temple-Morris, Peter


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


O'Hara, Eddie
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Olner, Bill
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


O'Neill, Martin
Timms, Stephen


Öpik, Lembit
Tipping, Paddy


Organ, Mrs Diana
Todd, Mark


Pearson, Ian
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Perham, Ms Linda
Truswell, Paul


Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pike, Peter L
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Plaskitt, James
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pond, Chris
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Pope, Greg
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pound, Stephen
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Tyler, Paul


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Walley, Ms Joan


Primarolo, Dawn
Ward, Ms Claire


Prosser, Gwyn
Wareing, Robert N


Purchase, Ken
Watts, David


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Webb, Steve


Quinn, Lawrie
White, Brian


Rammell, Bill
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Rapson, Syd
Wicks, Malcolm


Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)



Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rendel, David
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Willis, Phil



Wills, Michael


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Winnick, David


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Rooney, Terry
Woodward, Shaun


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Woolas, Phil


Rowlands, Ted
Worthington, Tony


Roy, Frank
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Ruddock, Joan
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)



Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ryan, Ms Joan
Mr. Don Touhig and


Sanders, Adrian
Mr. Jim Dowd.






NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Letwin, Oliver


Amess, David
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Lidington, David


Baldry, Tony
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bercow, John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Loughton, Tim


Blunt, Crispin
Luff, Peter


Boswell, Tim
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Brazier, Julian
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Browning, Mrs Angela
Malins, Humfrey


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Mates, Michael


Burns, Simon
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Butterfill, John
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Moss, Malcolm



O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Chope, Christopher
Ottaway, Richard


Clappison, James
Page, Richard


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Paice, James



Pickles, Eric


Collins, Tim
Prior, David


Cran, James
Randall, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Robathan, Andrew


Duncan, Alan
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


Evans, Nigel
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fabricant, Michael
Ruffley, David


Right, Howard
St Aubyn, Nick


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Fraser, Christopher
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gale, Roger
Spicer, Sir Michael


Garnier, Edward
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gibb, Nick
Streeter, Gary


Gill, Christopher
Swayne, Desmond


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Syms, Robert


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Gray, James
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Green, Damian
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Greenway, John
Townend, John


Grieve, Dominic
Tredinnick, David


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Trend, Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Tyrie, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Waterson, Nigel


Hayes, John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Heald, Oliver
Whittingdale, John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Wilkinson, John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Willetts, David


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Yeo, Tim


Jenkin, Bernard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Key, Robert



King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Tellers for the Noes:


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Mr. Peter Atkinson and


Lansley, Andrew
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — National Lottery

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): It may be for the convenience of the House to take motions 6 and 7 together.

Hon. Members: No.

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I beg to move,
That the draft Millennium Commission (Substitution of a Later Date) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 23rd November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
Two closely connected orders are before the House this evening, and I should like to begin by describing what the first does. The Millennium Commission (Substitution of a Later Date) Order 2000 extends the Millennium Commission's funding life until 20 August 2001. After that date, the commission will continue to operate as a grant-giving body, but we propose that it will receive no further direct income from the national lottery.
The Millennium Commission was established by the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. Its purpose is to fund projects to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium. Under the 1993 Act, the Millennium Commission would stop receiving funding on 31 December this year. However, the Act recognised that that date might have to be extended and allows that to be done by order.
The decision to extend the funding life of the commission was made by the previous Administration. The then Secretary of State for National Heritage quoted a statement made by her Department on 18 January 1997. It said:
An Order will accordingly be brought forward to extend the funding life of the commission for one year.—[Official Report, 20 January 1997; Vol. 288, c. 448W.]
The reason for that decision was to cover variations from the estimates in the millennium exhibition's business plan without prejudicing the commission's existing grant programme. This Government reaffirmed that commitment.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I want to be absolutely clear. Does extending the date to 20 August 2001 enable the commission to receive a grant in the period from 31 December 2000 to 20 August 2001 that it would not otherwise have received? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that no further funding will be made available to the commission in that period?

Mr. Smith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's question confuses the commission with the exhibition. The answer to the first part of his question is that the extension that we are now debating is an extension of the income life of the Millennium Commission. That means that the commission will receive extra income from the national lottery for the period from 31 December this year through to 20 August next year. I shall explain shortly exactly what the expected figures for that will be.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also appeared to allude to the grant of money by the Millennium Commission to the New Millennium Experience Company, which is running the dome. If he is referring


to that, I can tell him that it is not our expectation or intention that any further funds will be made available by the Millennium Commission to the dome.

Mr. Hogg: Expectation and intention are not the same thing as an undertaking. Would the right hon. Gentleman now care to give an undertaking?

Mr. Smith: I can go further than that. I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that none of the funding that is being debated in the order relates in any way to any additional funding for the dome. I will come to that point more explicitly in a moment or two.
The Government reaffirmed the commitment that had been made by the previous Government about the protection of the existing programme of the Millennium Commission. The order extends the Commission's funding life to 20 August 2001. We estimate that that will mean that the Millennium Commission will receive £2,286.5 million of income from the national lottery. After that date, we propose that the commission will receive no further income from the proceeds of the national lottery. I should point out that the previous Administration had proposed an extension until the end of 2001. Our proposed extension is clearly shorter than that.
Let me say a few words about how we arrived at the new figure of £2,286.5 million, which is an increase—this answers the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point—of £269.5 million on the previous announced total of £2,017 million. The purpose of the increase is twofold. First, we agree with the view of the previous Administration that the Millennium Commission's other projects should not be adversely affected as a consequence of additional grants to the dome. This accounts for £198 million of the increase—£179 million of grants and £19 million of lost interest on that amount.
Secondly, there are some additional worthwhile activities that we believe that the commission should undertake within its lifetime budget. Those account for the remaining £71.5 million of the increase.
The additional £71.5 million will enable the commission to do a number of things that would not have been possible under its previously agreed income ceiling. It will be able to put £6.5 million towards the cost of new year's eve 2000 celebrations. A further £10 million will be available to support projects reflecting the achievements and aspirations of the black communities in the UK. An additional £30 million will be available to support the commission's existing £3 billion programme of projects, many of which are still being completed. With that funding, the commission will be able to ensure that its capital projects have a solid foundation on which to build for the future.
The order also allows the commission to use £25 million to support science centres. The commission is minded to set up an endowed fund to provide resources in a few years for refurbishment work on the network of science centres around the UK which the commission has funded. As well as being interesting to visit, science centres are playing a key role in informal education, both for schoolchildren and for adults. It is increasingly important that people have the opportunity to widen their knowledge of science, technology and medicine, as these will have a major impact on all our lives.
I am pleased to say that the Wellcome Trust, the world's largest medical charity, which has also made a major contribution to science centres across the UK,

has agreed to consider working in partnership with the commission and providing funds to increase the value of the endowment that we propose. That fund will enable the centres to maintain their attractiveness both as visitor centres and educational resources.
All those are extremely worthwhile initiatives, and I am pleased that the commission will be able to support them if the order is approved.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: May I take the Secretary of State back to the £30 million for projects that are not yet complete? If those projects did not go ahead, for reasons unconnected with the Millennium Commission funding—such as a failure to find partnership funding—would the money then revert to the commission to be spent subsequently?

Mr. Smith: That is correct. That happened with the third phase of the Earth centre project near Doncaster, which will not now proceed. The money that the commission had earmarked for the third phase of that project has returned to the commission's fund and has been used for other projects.
Of course, there are projects that are proving to be extremely successful and which are incurring additional expenditure, for various reasons that are not necessarily the fault of those running them. For example, the Eden project in Cornwall, which is well known to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), has run into cashflow difficulties. That is an excellent project, which is proving to be extremely popular with visitors even before it is fully open. To assist the project, the commission has decided to make available modest additional funding. Such problems are arising in a variety of extremely worthwhile projects throughout the country, and this funding will enable the commission to tackle them sensibly and rationally.

Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: On the subject of money returning to the Millennium Commission, would my right hon. Friend tell us how much, if any, of the sums that are to be paid by Legacy in respect of its purchase of interests in the New Millennium Experience Company and the Greenwich site will find its way back to the commission?

Mr. Smith: First, it is not for me to speak about the precise details of any arrangement with Legacy, because I have not been involved in any of the direct discussions. Furthermore, the matter is not yet finalised: Legacy has been declared to be the preferred bidder and negotiations with the company are continuing. Until those negotiations are complete and 1, with other Members of Parliament, know the exact terms of the deal that has been concluded, it would be premature of me to answer in a specific fashion the question asked by my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: May I press my right hon. Friend on that point? I phrased my question deliberately: I did not ask how much money would come, but how much the commission anticipated would come. The commission is like any other board of trustees or company board of directors; it must anticipate some funding. Is it anticipated that any money will return to the commission as a result of the Legacy bid? Is only a small sum


anticipated? Can my right hon. Friend give a ballpark figure for the sum that the commission anticipates it might have to spend?

Mr. Smith: For the reasons that I advanced, it is impossible for me to give my hon. and learned Friend a ballpark figure. However, I can say that it is certainly the expectation of the commission that any funds provided by Legacy as part of a deal, as and when it is agreed, will return in part to the Millennium Commission through the New Millennium Experience Company, and in part to English Partnerships, which owns the ground on which the dome stands. However, I should state that there will be substantial costs associated with the decommissioning of the dome, which will have to be met from such proceeds. That is why it is impossible for me, at this stage, to give my hon. and learned Friend ballpark figures. However, it is my expectation that there will be a return to the Millennium Commission from such a disposal.

Mr. Syd Rapson: If the life of the commission is not extended, might such schemes as the Portsmouth tower be jeopardised by a possible failure to receive funding?

Mr. Smith: Yes. If the order is not passed, several potential projects earmarked for funding by the commission will not receive their funding. In addition, any extra funds needed by projects such as the Eden project to ensure their successful completion would not be available from the commission.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: May I take the Secretary of State back to the question posed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews)? Is not the right hon. Gentleman being needlessly coy about the value to the commission of the Legacy deal, if it goes ahead, given that a precedent was set by the Nomura transaction? If memory serves correctly, that transaction was to be worth about £105 million and the commission was to receive £40 million from that. Would it not be sensible to apply the same proportions in the case of Legacy?

Mr. Smith: We are talking about a deal that has not yet been concluded, figures that have not yet been finalised, and decommissioning costs that remain the subject of discussion and detailed analysis, so I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman in the specific fashion that he requires. However, I can say that the principle on which any such arrangement is likely to be based is that some funds will return to the New Millennium Experience Company and, through it, to the commission, and some funds will return to English Partnerships. Given the yet unresolved final nature of any such deal, I cannot give exact figures.

Mr. David Maclean: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: No. I must make some progress.
Much of the increase that is before us is required to make good the undertaking by this and the previous Administration that the Millennium Commission's other

programmes should not be affected by grants to the dome. Without the order, there would be a hole in the commission's budget plans due to the grants made to the dome. The order repairs that hole and ensures that the commission's other programmes do not suffer. In other words, some of the additional money is a consequence of the dome, but it is not for the dome. It is to make good the money that the commission has already agreed to pay to the dome so that the commission can carry out all its other non-dome related activities, which are the vast bulk of its work.
I can assure the House that particularly in the light of NMEC's improved financial position, we do not intend any additional money to be provided to the dome. I can confirm that none of the additional money provided in the order beyond that already reported to Parliament will be paid to NMEC or any other body that may become responsible for the millennium dome.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The debate will not be followed by a debate, except for a deferred vote. The Opposition are opposed to splitting debates from the votes that should naturally follow them.
The Secretary of State has his customary look of being rather pleased with himself written all over his face. He has no right to he pleased with himself, because the order represents a humiliating admission of failure. In retrospect, it was prudent of the previous Administration, in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), whom I am pleased to see in his place, played a distinguished part, to put in place a mechanism for protecting the interests of the Millennium Commission and its projects in the event of the dome failing. However, nobody could have believed that under this Government that failure would be such a huge and appalling disgrace, with such enormous repercussions for other worthwhile causes.
The public are rightly angered by the Government's handling of the dome project and by the hundreds of millions of pounds of overspending and waste that it represents. It became clear early this year that the dome was not financially viable, yet the Government and the company insisted that the entire project was a great success. I shall remind the House of the figures that lie behind the need for the order.
The original contribution from the national lottery to the dome was £399 million. To that, in the autumn of last year, was added £50 million of supposedly repayable contingency funding. Will the money ever be repaid? In February, the dome received a further £60 million, again ostensibly repayable. Will that money ever be repaid? In May, yet further money was poured into the dome—£29 million. In August and September, further sums of £43 million and £47 million respectively were sunk in the project. Will any of this money ever be repaid?
There came a point when not even the Government could spin the dome as anything but a dome and a drain on the national lottery. What did they do? They started to blame other people. Everybody was responsible but them, and to incompetence they then added cowardice. It remains a matter of lasting shame on the Government that no Minister, not even Lord Falconer, has seen fit to do the honourable thing and resign. However, not even Lord Falconer's resignation, richly deserved though it might be,


could bring back the millions of pounds that have been flushed down the project—so we have the order before us tonight.
Parliament was not, of course, asked to approve any of the additional grants to the dome. We had no say in that, but we in the Opposition have made our views known. It was wrong, and everyone, including Ministers, knew that it was wrong to continue to bail out the dome. That was done for the worst possible reason: it was done for expediency.

Mr. Chris Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman therefore answer this question: if he had been faced with the advice that we were given at the time, that the choice was between making an additional grant to the dome or incurring far greater expenditure to the public purse by pulling the plug at that stage, which decision would he have taken?

Mr. Ainsworth: Once the full information about the project is available, which it is not yet, we may be in a better position to consider that question. On two occasions the Millennium Commission's accounting officer advised not giving the dome more money, on the ground that it would not be a prudent use of public funds, and on two occasions the Secretary of State had him overruled. That does not say much for the right hon. Gentleman's prudence.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. By this year, when the dome was making a loss, that was because of the Government's interference since the election, particularly by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). They filled the dome with Labour-inspired ideas which the public did not want to come and see. If they had put proper stuff in it, the dome might have been a success.

Mr. Ainsworth: My right hon. Friend is exactly right, but I am sure that at this time of night Mr. Deputy Speaker would not want me to be tempted down a route that may not be strictly relevant to the order. If the dome had had anything halfway decent in it, it would not have been the financial disaster that it became. If it had had halfway decent financial management, the problem of low visitor numbers would have been considerably mitigated.
The dome was bailed out for reasons of political expediency. It was done to save the Prime Minister's face. The project which the Prime Minister described as
the first paragraph of my next election manifesto
had become so closely allied to the image of new Labour that new Labour could not afford its demise.
If the Secretary of State thinks that he can claim any credit, except perhaps from the Prime Minister, for wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on political expediency, he can think again. The money spent on the dome will never be seen again. It has gone for ever. It is possible that some may be recouped by the proceeds of the sale of the dome, but not enough.
Having bungled the operation of the dome, Ministers are bungling the disposal of the site. When Nomura pulled out of its deal last September, an opportunity existed to open up the future of the dome to a new competition designed to maximise any payback of commission funds

and raise additional sums for regeneration. Instead, the Government stubbornly returned to exclusive discussions with a bidder that they had previously rejected.
Again, the Government are being driven by expediency. They want the dome off their books before the general election. Ministers have refused to deny reports that Government advisers have said that, without the dome, the site could be worth a further £300 million. That would be enough to pay back the lottery good causes. It would be enough to obviate the need for the order, and leave some to spare.
It is clear that major doubts exist about the viability of the proposed sale to Legacy. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) made a valiant stab at trying to get the information that we have been trying to get for weeks about the status of the Legacy deal and what it might mean for Millennium Commission funds. I do not know, and I do not know whether the Secretary of State knows, whether the present discussions with Legacy will lead to a deal. Ministers have been curiously vague about that.
The attempt to stitch up a cosy deal with Legacy before the general election may yet fall through. Given the Government's pig-headed approach to the disposal and future use of the dome, it is not possible to factor any future sale proceeds into calculations about the overall cost of the dome to the lottery.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made an important point and attempted to get to the bottom of what, precisely, the order is about. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for repeating the assurance of Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who said in another place:
none of the additional money provided for in this order … will be paid to NMEC or to any other body which may have responsibility for the Millennium Dome.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 2000; Vol. 620, c. 512.]
I am not only grateful for the Secretary of State's unequivocal assurance, but extremely relieved to have it. I assure him that we shall hold him to it. I say again, as I have often said before, that not another penny must be spent on that failed project.
It is a great pity that the Government have come to share that view only in December, when they had the option and opportunity to stop the rot in February, May, August and September. The dome will cast a long shadow over the Government, but Conservative Members do not want it to blight other millennium projects. The vast bulk of the additional millennium money—£198 million worth—that will become available as a result of tonight's order is attributable to the dome. That is the scale of the outrage. A sum of £198 million is attributable to the dome, but will not be spent on it. It will be spent on other projects whose funds have been hijacked by the dome.
I note what the Secretary of State said about £30 million—a large sum—being set aside for other commission projects. However, I should be grateful if, in her closing remarks, the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting told the House which projects funded by the Millennium Commission are likely to need extra lottery funding over and above their agreed budgets. Will she comment on the thought that those projects are finding it difficult to obtain the sponsorship money that they need to complete because of the problems associated with the dome and the fact that the Government have managed to give even the millennium a bad name?
The House will also wish to know on what basis spending £6.5 million on fireworks for the coming new year's eve is reckoned to represent good value for a good cause.

Mr. Maclean: That is the second chapter of the manifesto.

Mr. Ainsworth: It is certainly not in Ken Livingstone's manifesto.
I am happy to endorse the funding for science centres which, I very much hope, will create places of lasting educational value. It seems perverse to spend a quarter of the amount allocated to science centres on a single night's partying. This is an unhappy occasion and Ministers should be ashamed of themselves. They should be ashamed of the way in which they have handled the dome, of the waste and of creeping in here late at night to debate this sad order.

Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I shall be brief, given the time and the hour. We are here to debate whether the House should breathe new life into the Millennium Commission, which is a creature of statute and unique in many ways. However, in legal terms, it is no better and no worse than trustees. We are therefore talking about a board of trustees. It is not the Government; indeed, several trustees who sit on the commission are not Government Members. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is here—I hope that he will speak later, perhaps in defence of the commission—and he is a member of the board.
We are here to consider whether the House is justified, given what has occurred over the past year, in placing its confidence in the same board of trustees as has held the stewardship of the Millennium Commission in that period. I suggest that it is not, and that the way the board of trustees has conducted its affairs in the past year should mean that it forfeits the confidence of the House.
When we vote on Wednesday, we will cling to nurse for fear of finding something worse. However, even if we vote to end the board's existence, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) can rest in peace about the project in his constituency. The answer that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave him was plumb wrong. Even if we got rid of the board, the money in the trust fund would continue to exist, the law would take its course, and other trustees would have the responsibility for administering it. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North can therefore relax.
An aggregate vote in early-day motions over the past year totals hundreds of hon. Members who, whatever their political complexion, have expressed time and again their abhorrence at the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been leached out of the Millennium Commission. It is a privilege to serve on the commission. There are few pleasures so great as giving away money. If it is not one's own money, the pleasure is lessened; none the less, it is a great privilege and pleasure to be charged with the stewardship of £2 billion to donate for the public good and according to the public will. However, it is not difficult. All one has to do is to examine a project and

decide whether it provides best value for the money. In charitable terms, best value is simply defined. It means that it inures the public good to the value of the money that is being spent. If one is voting millions of pounds, on every occasion, one asks whether the project fulfils that criterion.
I do not agree with the censure of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had every right to come to the House and look happy and self-satisfied when he arrived. I could not see whether he did, but he was justified in doing so. Most of what has come from the Millennium Commission is a joy beyond telling. I sometimes drive past the new botanical gardens in Wales. They are a joy—in learning, scholarship and entertainment.
Although we have every right and duty to praise, we also have a right and duty to criticise and indict when it is clear that hundreds of millions of pounds have been used not for the public good, but to purchase the political and commercial debt of Government. That has happened in the case of the millennium dome. It is worth re-examining the dome's history to provide a short chronology.
It is clear from the auditor's report that, as we all knew, the dome was commercially unviable by the beginning of the year. By February, it was clear that it was trading insolvently, and thus illegally under insolvency legislation. My right hon. Friend wrote to Charles Falconer to tell him that the dome was trading insolvently. At that time, £60 million was donated to the company. It was difficult to criticise because there was reason to suppose that granting the extra money, on top of the £449 million, was just sustainable. However, that did not apply in May, when £29 million was given directly to the New Millennium Experience Company after the PricewaterhouseCoopers report.
The PricewaterhouseCoopers report starts with this stark sentence:
The company is insolvent. This will be a matter of concern to the directors.
I have dabbled at the edge of commercial jurisprudence and can tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have never seen an accountant's report so stark in its conclusion. The Millennium Commission gave that completely insolvent company £29 million of public money and subsequently gave it a further £90 million of public money, without hope of redress or reward. Why? I suggest that the answer is to be found buried in the middle of the auditor's report.
That report is clear that, on 22 June, the NMEC directors went to the Government to demand an indemnity. They did so because they knew that they were trading illegally, and the Government gave it to them. I did not know that; the House did not know it. That was not revealed, to my knowledge, until we received the auditor's report. At that point, because of that indemnity, the Government, and nobody else, were liable for the company's debts. If the company, which had been trading since January 2000, had gone into liquidation, the Government would have been responsible the minute that indemnity was given.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Do I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to be saying that the Government gave the NMEC directors an indemnity that public money would be put behind their undertaking?

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: That is absolutely, and with precision, what I am saying.

Mr. Heseltine: indicated dissent.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I have the letter here, because I asked for a copy and my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting was good enough to give one to me. The right hon. Gentleman reacts with shock, but I am sure that he would have done the same had he seen this paragraph. I can tell him what it says:
In consideration of their continuing to act as directors
the Government
will indemnify the directors of NMEC in respect of any personal civil liability—
I would like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to listen with particular care to this—
(including without limitation wrongful trading or similar misfeasance actions by reasons of the company's insolvency)…
That was the guarantee—the indemnity given to the directors. Without the knowledge of, and without recourse to, the House, the NMEC directors were given by the Government an open-handed, retrospective indemnity against wrongful trading—trading while insolvent—for the millennium dome.
From that point on, the Government, and nobody else, were liable for the trading of the NMEC. I am appalled that the right hon. Member for Henley did not know that, because when he, with other commissioners, voted £119 million of public funds in May, August and September, he should have known and, indeed, should have been told that what he was paying for—the debt that he was buying—was one owed not by the commission, but by the Government. That is the point that answers what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said.

Mr. Heseltine: indicated dissent.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: The right hon. Gentleman will make his own speech soon, and I want to hear what he has to say.
That answers the point raised continually by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which says that we knew in May that the cost of closing the company would be greater than that of keeping it open and subsidising it. I have a question, which I hope will be answered, and I pose it to the right hon. Gentleman and to my right hon. Friend: cost to whom? The commission had no legal liability to bail out the Government—absolutely none at all. The commission is a board of trustees. Its only liability was to its beneficiaries—to the public, not to Government.
When the accounting officer went to the chairman of the commission and said, "I will require your personal signature before I endorse this," that is precisely what he was saying. He was saying that the commission was acting outside the ambit of its trust: it was buying Government debt and nothing else from May onwards. That is absolutely clear.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The hon. and learned Gentleman touches on an extremely important point. With respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley

(Mr. Heseltine), I must say that it is not inconceivable that commissioners were not informed of the request for indemnities. It is, however, inconceivable that Lord Falconer was not informed. What has the hon. and learned Gentleman to say about the fact that, giving evidence to the Select Committee in July—a month after the indemnities had been granted—Lord Falconer denied any knowledge of them?

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I cannot answer for Lord Falconer. I can only express my surprise that anyone would not have known about the indemnities, so critical were they. Had they not been given, the entire board of NMEC would have resigned. The members of the board knew that they were personally liable, and—well heeled though most of them undoubtedly are—a liability of £200 million-odd would have been more than they would have wished to bear.
On those indemnities everything then hung. I hope very much that the right hon. Member for Henley will tell us whether he knew of them in May—as a commissioner—at the time he voted, as he must have, for £100 million-odd of public money. If he did not, there was a singular failure on someone's part.
My right hon. Friend well knows that it gives me no pleasure to speak in these terms. He also knows, as does every Member present—it is an open secret—that he was not in favour of the project at the outset. It landed on his desk, and he has weathered the storm—rightly or wrongly, but that is another matter. Anyway, that is what he has had to do, and storm it has undoubtedly been.
This has been a sad, sad tale of a lack of public accountability. I shall end my speech now, because the hour is late; but the tale is summed up by something that Charles Falconer said to me, not in private but in public, on a radio programme. When we were talking about the use of the Millennium Commission for payment of the money, he said, "What you must understand is that we treat the Millennium Commission as a bank."
By virtue of its structure, the Millennium Commission consists of trustees. Trustees are not a bank, and if Members are being asked to continue the life of a bank, they should refuse to do so.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The debate has taken a somewhat wider turn that might have been expected, although I suppose that Conservative Front Benchers will miss no opportunity to discuss the fate of the dome.
There have been extensive discussions, which will doubtless continue; but I think that this modest proposal to extend the life of the Millennium Commission until 20 August is entirely justifiable, in the terms advanced by the then Government when they anticipated that this might well have to happen. The then Secretary of State made it plain that contingencies would result if the life of the Millennium Commission and its funding were extended.
Notwithstanding what the Secretary of State said about the dome's indirect impact on the Millennium Commission's finances, there is considerable justification for allowing the work that the commission has begun on several other projects to be properly completed. If fault there is in the management of the dome project, it would


be unfortunate if the fallout were to damage those projects irreparably. They are of a scale of expenditure that is all together different from that encompassed by the expenditure on the dome. They are modest in total and should have the support of the House in principle. It should allow the order to go through without opposition.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I start by declaring an interest as a millennium commissioner. Indeed, I was one of the original millennium commissioners, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke).
When we came to deal with the problems of financing the dome and with the decision to set up a public body to organise the arrangements, NMEC's directors asked questions as to their liabilities. Without being specific about the date, which is secondary to the substantive issue, the hypothesis was put to me as the Minister most immediately responsible: what happens if we are faced with a serious financial situation? Self-evidently, no member of the public will accept Government-organised directorships if there is a risk that they personally would carry a liability if the project failed. We would never be able to recruit citizens to public bodies if they had to put their personal resources at stake.
At that time, it looked as though we had reached the point at which the project itself was at serious risk because the one absolutely clear decision that the previous Government took and that the present Government have maintained is that there would be no public money in the project; there would be no taxpayers' money ever in the project. Faced with that question by the NMEC directors, I personally devised the arrangement that the Secretary of State has outlined: in the event of the dome producing a negative financial situation, the life of the commission would be extended by order to finance any uncosted deficit that might arise.
Therefore, I know how it happened. I personally designed the arrangement. It was designed to deal with a contingency that none of us believed would arise, but that hypothetically had to be addressed. Sadly, as we have said in earlier debates, the financial position of the dome worked out very differently from the way we had hoped, but we had put in place the arrangements that we are discussing today.
As a millennium commissioner, it is incumbent on me to make it clear that I will vote for the extension of the order. How could I do anything other than that, having designed the arrangement to deal with the very contingency that we are now discussing?
I tell my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) that I have spent many years—although not many more now—in this place, but I have never yet been characterised as one who spends his time trying to make life easy for Labour Members and their activities. However, in that particular context, if I have failed in the high standards that I have set myself as a Conservative Member, I offer my profound apologies to my Front-Bench colleagues. I did not realise that, in the many months in which we have wrestled with the dome issue, particularly in recent years, I was writing the Labour party's next manifesto or bailing out the fortunes of this or that Minister in the current Government.
If that is the way in which the Millennium Commission's decision-making process is seen, I can only say that that is not how we interpreted the process. Without wishing in any way to trespass on the good will of my fellow commissioners, I think that one or two of them might find it marginally surprising to learn that the deliberations in which they have been conducting themselves were designed to help the Government's fortunes. I am thinking, particularly of my noble Friend Lord Glentoran, who is a Conservative Front Bencher in the House of Lords and has been a distinguished commissioner for as long as I have. I think that he, too, would be marginally surprised if it were reported to him—I am sure that he will read the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey—that he was acting for the motives that have been suggested.
The circumstances were not those that we sought, but they had to be dealt with. I tell the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) that I do not think that, faced with the circumstances facing us, any hon. Member would have taken the simplistic decision to close the dome. We had invested hundreds of millions of pounds in a project that, at that time—I will be the first to say it—was beginning to show troubles. However, considerations in closing the dome would have included enormous potential debts and unquantified legal actions. None of us could have known where the matter would have ended, what the courts would have determined and what writs would have been issued.
I am not talking only about the simplistic issue of the creditors who would have queued up for their money. Presumably, the hon. and learned Member for Medway was implying in his speech that the creditors should go hang and that, if the dome had closed, all those who believed that it was in some way a public organisation would have been told that they had just got it wrong. It would have been explained to them, "Bad luck, old boy." The staff who would have had to be made redundant would not have been paid. Presumably that is what was in the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
From the hon. and learned Gentleman's very erudite speech, I suspect that he knows that one cannot pick and choose which creditors one supports. One either stands behind a project or one does not. It is incalculable where the project would have ended up. It is perfectly true that the Millennium Commission's accounting officer did say to us that there were not value for money grounds on which we could justify the project's continuation. However, at the same time, he very clearly said that there were other grounds on which we could justify continued support for the project. One of those grounds—for me, the overwhelmingly most important one—was regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: The right hon. Gentleman has addressed various issues that I raised. Just now, he said that the accountant said that there were other grounds to support the project, such as rejuvenation of the Greenwich peninsula. However, he is simply wrong about that. He is totally, 100 per cent. wrong about that. The accountant said—I have read the report—that, in May, that justification was no longer tenable because all the benefit of rejuvenation had already been realised. That is what he said to the chairman. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to check that point because he is wrong.
The right hon. Member for Henley says that I have implied that the creditors should go hang. I am sure that that is not a deliberate misinterpretation of what I said, but it is certainly a clear one. I have said in the clearest possible terms that it was absolutely clear to anyone looking at this matter that the liability was the Government's, not the commissioners'. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he had been, but was no longer, a member of the Government; he was a commissioner, with all the duties of a commissioner.

Mr. Heseltine: I have not been given legal advice on this, but I understand that the Government would have said two things. First, all directors of such public bodies have such an underwritten assurance, which is within normal practice. Secondly, in any assurance that the Government gave about the underpinning of the organisation, they were merely resting upon the assurance that I had first given to the Millennium Commission that the Government would use their powers to extend the life of the commission and therefore its access to lottery funding. It was on that basis that the Government were able to give assurances about the cash flow requirements of the dome. That is how I would imagine the present Government would have seen the situation, because that is how I would have seen it had I been in that situation—knowing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer under the previous Government and this one had an iron rule that no public money was to flow.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: If such a blanket cover existed on behalf of the directors, why does my right hon. Friend think that they went to the Government in May to seek personal indemnities against any action for unlawful trading?

Mr. Heseltine: I cannot know; I am not and never have been a director, and I did not talk to the directors about any anxieties that they may have had. I cannot answer that interesting question from my hon. Friend; it is not my responsibility to do so. However, a director in circumstances where hypothetical contingencies are becoming of greater concern every day is bound to ask such questions not only of his lawyers, but of the Government of the day. These questions are more for the Secretary of State than for me; this matter did not have to be addressed by the Millennium Commission.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the accounting officer of the Millennium Commission said to the commissioners, in terms, that although his precise advice was that the grant under consideration was not value for money, none the less there were other material factors that commissioners could and indeed should take into account in making any decision? Has not he subsequently confirmed that had he personally been a commissioner making that decision, he would have made the same decision as the commissioners?

Mr. Heseltine: The Secretary of State reinforces my point, which the hon. and learned Member for Medway sought to challenge. There is not the slightest doubt that on one of the earlier occasions when we gave additional funding to the dome project, the accounting officer gave us advice that the funding was not value for money in the narrow sense, but was totally justifiable in the wider sense

of the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula. I remember that clearly. There were other circumstances later in which different advice was given. However, there was always a clear option for the Millennium Commission to take a wide perspective as to its responsibilities and ambitions for the project. It was always within that context that we preserved the legal base on which we took our decisions.
We all know that the dome project has not worked out in the way we hoped, or originally conceived and planned. However, I do not believe that there was a time when a responsible Millennium Commission would have closed the project down. If we had ever done so, no one knows what costs might have been incurred on the project. My experience in government tells me that it is as near unthinkable as any practical policy is for a Government organisation to close down and let the creditors and employees go hang. That would have been a wholly unacceptable decision, and I am delighted that the Millennium Commission refused to take it.

Mr. David Maclean: May I say how pleased we are to see the Secretary of State here tonight? On nights when the House no longer meets after 10 o'clock, it is refreshing to see a Secretary of State handling an order such as this. We are, unfortunately, used to important measures and Second Readings being dealt with by junior Ministers, and that is an insult to the House. On a motion that is reasonably important but not a mega-issue, to see the Secretary of State here as well as the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting says a lot for the right hon. Gentleman, and I congratulate him.
No one could accuse my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) of helping to write the Labour party manifesto, or of doing anything, as a Minister or a commissioner, designed to assist the Labour party. He will be as disappointed as everyone else about what happened to his marvellous vision of the dome. It was to be full of the best of British, showing the development of Britain as a nation over the past few hundred years and all the progress in science and technology that we can make in the next millennium. Unfortunately, after 1997, the project was hijacked by the Labour party and the dome was filled with cool Britannia pap. If that had not happened, more people might have been willing to visit it.
We all saw the press releases and comments in the press from those who inspected what the Government put in the dome. We read about the interference of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) when he was responsible for the project, and how he contradicted the New Millennium Experience Company and changed his mind. It was not surprising that the number of people going to the dome was drastically below expectation, with the resulting financial consequences for the company.
I am generally in sympathy with extending the time limit from 31 December, but I do not believe that 20 August is the right date. We need longer—the proposed period is too short for the Millennium Commission to deal with the necessary issues.
The Secretary of State rightly pointed out that some projects are behind schedule and new problems are arising daily, requiring the Millennium Commission to continue in existence for some time and allocate more funds to deal with those problems. He mentioned the Eden project


which, he seemed to suggest, was somewhere in Devon or Cornwall. We know a bit about Eden up in Cumbria, given that that is where the River Eden is. I know that I cannot get a reply to this point tonight because I did not anticipate Eden being mentioned or that I would make a constituency point. However, I should be grateful if the Secretary of State and the Minister would look carefully at the problems experienced in Carlisle by a project called Hadrian's bridge, to go across the River Eden. We may need considerably longer than the 20 August in which to sort out the problem.
I am not making a blatantly political point, but the problem is that the previous Labour council—perhaps because of the constraints to get contracts signed in time and the pressures that it was put under by the Millennium Commission—signed agreements for various projects in Carlisle, one of which was a bridge across the River Eden.

Mr. Chris Smith: The project was discussed at the last meeting of the Millennium Commission. We await with great interest and sympathy proposals from Carlisle city council for Hadrian's bridge.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the date of 20 August applies not to decisions taken by the Millennium Commission but only to the flow of funds into the Millennium Commission from the national lottery distribution fund. The flow of funds ceases on 20 August, but the commission stays very much in being.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. I was not being misleading—I suggest to him that the date should be later because I want more funds to be allocated for some special projects.
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's comments on Hadrian's bridge. There were problems: the previous Labour council let the contracts before the local government elections; there was pressure from the Millennium Commission; and the bids for the bridge proved grossly inaccurate, even though the structural engineers—with the best will in the world—thought that they were accurate. The new council faces the problem that the river is extremely sandy at that point, and the engineers suggest that the bill for installing deeper pilings to hold up the bridge will be at least £1 million.
I do not want to go into more detail on the matter, but I flag it up for Ministers and suggest that, when proposals are received from the Conservative council in Carlisle, they recognise that the council is wrestling with that inherited problem—that is as political as I shall be. The new costs are grossly in excess of the original estimates made by the previous Labour council and accepted by the Conservatives when they came into power. In those circumstances—the speed with which the Labour council felt that it had to move and the new costs that have been incurred—I hope that Ministers will consider the proposals carefully.
I am interested in the fact that the Millennium Commission concluded that it is legitimate for a trust fund to be set up to deal with the future refurbishment and repair of the science projects. If it is legitimate to set up a trust fund for the on-going maintenance of certain

projects, why would it not be in order to do so for the on-going maintenance of other projects? If it is legitimate to spend—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is going a little wide of the motion.

Mr. Maclean: I take your criticism, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was the Secretary of State who raised the issue of trust funds for science projects—I see the right hon. Gentleman nodding. However, although he may have gone down the wrong route—I do not want to follow him and earn your wrath, Madam Deputy Speaker—my point is directly relevant to the date. If 20 August has been specified and if the Millennium Commission has decided to spend money on trust funds for science projects, I suggest that, on the same principle, it would be perfectly legitimate to set up trust funds for other projects. That would require additional money and the date of 20 August would need to be set back, so that additional money could go to the Millennium Commission to be allocated.
Similarly, if it is legitimate to spend £6 million not on a capital project, but on a big fireworks display for the millennium, surely it would be legitimate to pick up some of the running costs of some of the projects that have already been funded. I realise that, according to the original plan, only capital costs would be covered, but if we can have trust funds for future refurbishment, surely it is sensible to set up such funds to deal with the running costs of some of the millennium projects that are sitting empty—they are white elephants.
Is it not true that a pop music museum in Sheffield is a complete economic disaster? That is not the fault of the Government, nor of the Millennium Commission—probably—but the fault of over-optimistic financial guidelines.

Mr. Chris Smith: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the national centre for popular music in Sheffield has nothing whatever to do with the Millennium Commission.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that correction; perhaps I picked the wrong example. If the Secretary of State can assure me that every capital project funded by the Millennium Commission is still working properly and does not have problems with running costs, I shall completely withdraw my suggestion. However, is it not true that numerous millennium projects are experiencing dire running cost problems? That is not the fault of the commission or of the Government; it is due to the over-optimistic claims of those who designed the projects in the first place. Are we to leave those projects empty and do nothing with them?
I suggest that the deadline of 20 August should be extended for at least another year, possibly until 30 December 2002, so that extra funds can be put in and the projects do not become white elephants. The Millennium Commission could set up a new trust fund to deal with the running costs.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Maclean: Yes, I shall happily give way to my right hon. Friend, but then I want to conclude my speech.

Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the order is not amendable in any way, we have the


difficult choice of whether to support it in full as it is, or vote against it because the date is too early, or should not be there at all? Is that not the unenviable decision that we regrettably have to make?

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is right. Some Opposition Members may wish to vote against the order because they totally oppose the Millennium Commission's continuing one minute beyond 31 December. I may have severe criticisms of some of the decisions made by the commission, and of some of the projects that have been funded, but some very good projects have also been funded. In my constituency, we now have one of the best village halls in the country, and we are grateful for the £70,000 that the Millennium Commission gave towards it. It is one of the best bargains, and one of the best-constructed buildings, in the country.
I am in favour of the commission's continuing, and also in favour of the order—except that it does not go far enough. I therefore intend to vote against it, so that the Government can replace it with an order to extend the period slightly and allow sufficient funds to be provided to deal with some of the problems that I have mentioned.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I shall be brief, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) for having finished speaking when he did. I declare the briefest interest as a former chairman of the Millennium Commission; it was a great pleasure to serve on that commission with my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). The one contribution that I may have made was to help advise the then Prime Minister on its membership. I congratulate my successors who served on the commission on a series of striking successes, which it helped to choose, support and sustain.
The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) asked about Legacy, and I congratulate the Secretary of State on the cautious words with which he responded, particularly in the context of the principle of the preferred bidder. I recall that that principle also appeared in connection with the letting of the new lottery contract—and, on the whole, it is a pretty dangerous concept to work with. The Secretary of State was prudent to use such cautious language.
During the imbroglio that we discussed in the earlier part of the debate, I asked the right hon. Gentleman an oral question about what the money that was lent to the New Millennium Experience Company would have been spent on if that loan had not been made available. In other words, would some projects go unfinanced simply because the money had been distributed? The Secretary of State gave me the reassuring answer that, to the best of his knowledge, none of the commission's other plans would be affected.
However, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) has implied that some other plans were affected by the porousness of the dome's finances. Frankly, that is now a matter initially, possibly, for the Comptroller and Auditor General, and subsequently for historians. I do not propose to probe it further this evening.
I have one elegiac question to ask the Secretary of State in his present capacity as the chairman of the Millennium Commission, which will probably be answered by the

Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting when she winds up. It is about what will happen to the programme of bursaries after 20 August 2001. The bursary scheme has always seemed an admirable programme, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley and I can remember discussing as long ago as 1994. In my view, the benefits of the programme are exemplified by the designer of coracles in County Down, who, as I recall, was one of the guests selected to come to the Royal Gallery on new year's eve.
Will the Minister—or the Secretary of State, who appears to be about to intervene—tell me what the basis for financing the bursaries will be after 20 August next year?

Mr. Chris Smith: The position is that the commission has made £100 million available for millennium awards, as they are now called, during the current period—the four or five years bestriding the millennium year. That programme is now well under way; many thousands of people have received those awards. However, our intention is that a further £100 million should form an endowment for the future in perpetuity. The income from that endowment will be used to finance similar awards in perpetuity—provided, of course, that the order is passed tonight. If it is not passed tonight, the £100 million endowment will be put in jeopardy.

Mr. Brooke: If those are the last words that the Secretary of State utters on the order, I am pleased that they were happy and pleasurable, and I am grateful to him for them.

Mr. John Greenway: The debate has shown the strength of feeling across the House about the millennium dome's funding, especially the almost £200 million extra that the Millennium Commission has given the dome, which is the cause of the Government's having to introduce the order tonight. Many right hon. and hon. Members feel extremely strongly about that.
I was interested in the comment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) —I think that I heard him correctly—that the scale of the failure was not envisaged at the start of the project, although his prudence in ensuring that such a mechanism existed to provide the Millennium Commission with on-going funding has been borne out by events.
The exchange of views between the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and my right hon. Friends will become required reading for those who wish to delve further into the issues relating to the awarding of the extra money to the dome and the extent to which Parliament was not properly informed of what was going on. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that there is reason to doubt whether Parliament would have approved that extra money if we had been asked to grant it under the kind of order that we are debating tonight. Of course it could be argued that matters are made worse by closing down the dome prematurely, but the real issue is that Parliament has never been told the whole truth.
From what we have heard in this brief debate, we can take it that the serious criticism of the ministerial handling of the millennium dome is justified. As my hon. Friend


the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) rightly said, no Minister has resigned; no one has seen fit to take responsibility for what has happened. However, the debate is not about awarding more money to the dome; it has already been given the money.
We welcome the assurance that the dome will not receive any more money, but I should be grateful if the Minister would make it clear in winding up that the promise, if I understand it correctly, is that the dome will receive no more money from the lottery. I want the difference to be made clear. Will it receive no more money from the Government, or is not there a possibility that they will have to underwrite some of the dome's decommissioning costs if a deal, such as that involving Legacy, goes through? That is not the same as saying that there will be no more lottery money. Will the dome be given public money? We certainly read in the newspapers the suggestion that it might be. Money has been earmarked for other worthy projects, and we would like to know in due course which projects will be supported by the £30 million to which the Secretary of State referred.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) spoke of what is happening in his constituency, but the real point about this debate is that we are being asked to replace money that is being filched to support the dome so that other projects will not lose out. Parliament has been placed in an impossible position. To provide more money would add insult to injury, because many parts of Britain think that the dome is a London project. London has already received more than its fair share of Millennium Commission money.
The regions feel impoverished, and they will feel more so if the order is not accepted. The Government have mismanaged the dome project and the order is proof of that. However, this debate is by no means the final chapter of a very sorry mess. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey said that it was a sad order, but we would exacerbate the sadness if other millennium projects failed for lack of money. I therefore urge my right hon. Friends not to vote against the order on Wednesday.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Janet Anderson): I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate and for staying late to make them. Several points have been made and, although I have little time left, I shall try to respond to as many of them as possible. However, many questions have been answered in the debate.
I shall briefly remind the House why the order is important. The first point to reiterate is one that has already been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The order is not directly about the dome. None of the additional funding provided in the order, beyond that already reported to Parliament, will be paid out in connection with the dome. However, both this Administration and, as the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) reminded us—it was his proposal initially—the previous Administration gave undertakings to the Millennium Commission that its support for the dome should not damage its other programmes. We continue to believe that that is the correct approach, and that is why we have introduced this order to extend the Millennium Commission's life until 20 August 2001.
I note that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said that he thought that that date was too early. I know the Eden river very well, because my parents used to live in his constituency. Sadly, they never voted for him.
The order honours the commitment that the commission's existing grant programmes and worthwhile new initiatives should not be damaged by its grants to the dome. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already outlined some of the programmes that will be made possible by the order.
In addition to allowing the commission to continue its current programmes—which would be in danger if the order were not approved—the additional resources will enable it to implement some excellent new programmes. For example, £6.5 million will go towards the cost of the new year's eve 2000 celebrations; £10 million will support projects reflecting the achievements and aspiration of black communities in the United Kingdom; and £30 million will be available to support the commission's existing £3 billion programme of projects, many of which are still being completed. As my right hon. Friend said, the funding will enable the commission to ensure that its capital projects have a solid foundation for the future.
I also remind the House of the exciting opportunities offered by the proposed link between the commission and the Wellcome Trust, which will lever in more money to support science centres. The proposed endowment will enable those centres to maintain their attractiveness as visitor centres and as educational resources.
The hon. Member for East Surrey knows only too well that Parliament was first made aware of what would happen on 20 January 1997. The then Secretary of State for National Heritage announced that an order would be introduced to extend the funding life of the Millennium Commission to make provision to cover variations from the estimates in the millennium exhibition's business plan without prejudicing the commission's existing grant programme.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I could list some of the projects whose funding might be affected if the order is not approved tonight. Some 100 projects are not completed, and it is open to them to apply to the Millennium Commission for funds. I cannot be expected to predict the decisions that the commissioners will make if such applications are made, but there is no doubt that the funding of some projects would be affected.
I remind the House about the regeneration potential of the dome. It has already created about 5,000 jobs in construction and operation. Taking the peninsula as a whole, about 13,000 people have gained work in the construction and operation of projects. Greenwich council predicts that 30,000 jobs will be created over the next seven years as a direct result of the catalyst created by the dome.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) spoke at some length about insolvency and the indemnity that was granted to the directors of the New Millennium Experience Company. I know that he is much more well-versed in legal matters than I am, but the fact that the directors sought an indemnity does not demonstrate that the company was trading while insolvent. The directors reasonably wanted


to protect themselves, and the right hon. Member for Henley made a point about the difficulties of recruiting people to public bodies.
The indemnity does not exceed that which is routinely offered to board members of all non-departmental public bodies, in line with Treasury and Cabinet Office guidelines. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, as sponsor Department, issued the indemnity as NMEC lacks the necessary powers to do so. The indemnity is limited and is offered on the basis that directors have first recourse to an existing commercial policy. The Treasury's advice was that the NMEC indemnity did not need to be separately reported to Parliament as it was covered by a Treasury minute of December 1998 reporting indemnities to all NDPB board members. I hope that that helps to clear up that point.
I thank the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) for his measured contribution and his support. I thank the right hon. Member for Henley for his welcome contribution. Like him, I cannot think for a minute that many members of the Millennium Commission would view themselves as friends or supporters of the Labour party. We should remember that the commission is an all-party body. I commend the order to the House.
Question put:—

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.

Division deferred till Wednesday 20 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

Orders of the Day — National Lottery

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I beg to move,
That the draft Apportionment of Money in the National Lottery Distribution Fund Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 23rd November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
The previous order extended the funding of the Millennium Commission until 20 August 2001, after which it will receive no more proceeds from the lottery. This order takes up the story from that point, by determining what happens to the commission's share of lottery funding thereafter.
It has been long-standing Government policy that once the commission's share of lottery income ceases, it should be transferred to the new opportunities fund. The order gives effect to that policy. It provides that immediately after the commission stops receiving new income from lottery proceeds, the new opportunities fund's share of lottery income increases from its present 13⅓ per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. In other words, from 21 August 2001 the new opportunities fund will receive £1 out of every £3 paid into the national lottery distribution fund.
The creation of the new opportunities fund as a new UK-wide lottery distributor focusing on health, education and the environment reflected the Government's intention to target lottery funding more directly on key areas of social inclusion and disadvantage. The fund has established itself as a major grant maker and developed innovative grant-making practices. It has enabled much needed educational, environmental and health-related initiatives, which would not otherwise be funded, to go ahead. Barely two years on from its creation, the fund is already having an impact on the nation's quality of life. From a healthy living centre for the elderly in Devon to new child care provision where none previously existed in County Tyrone, new opportunities fund money is flowing into projects of great benefit to people and communities.
A recent survey has confirmed that the public support the targeting of lottery funding on those areas—health, education and the environment—in which the fund distributes grant. When asked to identify the two or three most important areas for lottery funding out of a list of 10, 69 per cent. of respondents identified health, 55 per cent. education and 26 per cent. the environment. More than 2,000 grants have been awarded, many involving large numbers of individual projects. More than —614 million has been allocated to projects. The impact of those grants already includes: child care schemes that will create more than 110,000 new child care places; training in the use of information and communication technologies for more than 160,000 teachers; new cancer equipment in hospitals, and new preventive health services for deprived communities.
The new opportunities fund's increased income will allow it to target more areas where a real step-change in the quality of people's lives can be achieved. On 6 November, the Government launched the consultation paper "New Opportunities from the Lottery" which proposed a number of new initiatives for the new opportunities fund to fund.

In summary, those proposals are —750 million for additional sports facilities for schools and wider community use; —50 million for outdoor adventure and other activities for young people; —300 million to boost the fight against heart disease and stroke, to provide extra money for the fund's existing initiative to combat cancer, and to provide palliative care for adults and children with life-threatening and chronic illness; —200 million for the provision of child care places for children aged up to three, with further support for the over-threes, especially in deprived areas; —150 million for a programme of environmental renewal and community regeneration, which would support community regeneration, promote recycling and develop renewable energy sources; and an amount to be provided as small grants for community groups to support local health, education and environment projects.
The order also fulfils a second purpose. In the event that the Millennium Commission gets more than —2,286.5 million in the period up to 20 August 2001, the order ensures that any additional amount is transferred to the new opportunities fund. In other words, the order acts as a cap on the Millennium Commission's income. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: As the Secretary of State says, the effect of the order is to hand over to the Government's new opportunities fund one third of all the national lottery distribution fund from 20 August next year. Although I shall voice concern about the order, I should state at the outset that the Conservatives do not begrudge any of the beneficiaries of the new opportunities fund the money that they have received. Indeed, if after-school projects in my constituency had received the —92,000 that the new opportunities fund has bestowed in Islington, South and Finsbury, instead of nothing, I should be the first to congratulate them. If good causes can be ranked, there is no doubt that most people would rank cancer research above bailing out the dome.
We are not against funding cancer research, out-of-school activities or environmental projects, and we applaud the fact that the original lottery distributors have already done much in each of these areas. However, we have deep reservations about the new opportunities fund, and we cannot support awarding the fund a third of all the national lottery money. I emphasise again that that is not because we do not care about the projects that the new opportunities fund supports. It is because we do not believe that it is right that the Government should take so direct a hand in the award of lottery money.

Mr. Chris Smith: I am intrigued as to where the argument is leading the hon. Gentleman. He says that he supports the beneficiaries of new opportunities fund money, but he does not will the means to provide that money to them. Does he support new opportunities fund money going to good causes in health, education and the environment, or not?

Mr. Ainsworth: If the Secretary of State is patient, he will find out.
It has been said that the
lottery should not be seen as providing … money for the Government to distribute—[Official Report, 16 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 1333.]
Those were the words of the Minister for Sport, who happens also to have responsibilities for the lottery. It is always pleasant to see the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting in the Chamber, and perhaps she will explain why the responsible Minister is not present for this important debate about the future of the national lottery. The Minister for Sport said that the lottery was not to be used by the Government to provide extra funding.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), to whom we owe the existence of the national lottery, recently wrote:
The Government must not get its sticky paws on any more lottery money … It's not the Government's lottery, it's our national lottery.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As a result of his introduction of the lottery, many thousands of good causes have benefited. The lottery has been an enormous success and immensely popular. It was established to provide additional funding to areas of life—sport, charities, the historic environment and the arts—that have always tended to be, and probably will always tend to be, at the back of the queue for Exchequer funding.
The creation of the new opportunities fund has already taken money away from the original good causes, the original lottery beneficiaries, which are under growing pressure to meet demand. As the joint lottery distributors made clear in a recent submission to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, they are already receiving far more applications for lottery funding than they can possibly support. For example, the National Lottery Charities Board can provide only £1 for every £6 requested.
Since the general election, the Arts Council of England and Sport England have each found themselves with respectively £97 million and £96 million less lottery money to distribute. That is in part a direct consequence of the creation of the new opportunities fund. A similar reduction has taken place at the National Lottery Charities Board and the heritage lottery fund. We know also—it has been recognised on both sides of the House—that charities especially have suffered an impact from the national lottery, and it seems particularly unfair that they should not receive the share of the lottery distribution fund which was originally envisaged for them.
The new opportunities fund is robbing Peter to pay Paul, where Peter is independent of government and Paul is an agent of government. We believe that if lottery money is to be truly additional to core government spending, it should be independently administered. The order will expand the role of government and extend patronage where we believe that it should be reduced. The introduction of the new opportunities fund has added new bureaucracy to the administration of lottery funds and further needless complications.
There is considerable overlap between the activities of the new opportunities fund and the activities of other lottery distributors. That is perhaps most visible in sport, but it also applies to the charities and heritage funds which have supported worthwhile schemes in health care, the environment and out-of-school activities. When the Government reviewed their policy on the lottery, it would

have been possible to expand support for those causes without creating a new Government machine to control the process.
The establishment of the new opportunities fund had less to do with the causes that it supports than with the Government's desire to expand and to exercise control. We do not approve of that in principle and, given the record of the Secretary of State on the dome, Wembley and the national lottery licence award, we do not approve of it in practice, either.
The order effectively extends the hand of the Treasury into one third of the lottery. It reduces independence in the distribution of lottery funds and it expands the role of the state. I therefore ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in opposing it.

Mr. Chris Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the question that I posed earlier and which he singularly failed to answer in the course of his remarks? Would he scrap the new opportunities fund and thereby deprive its beneficiaries of the funds that they receive, if he got into government?

Mr. Ainsworth: The right hon. Gentleman clearly has not been listening carefully enough to my remarks; nor have I quite concluded them.
When I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in opposing the measure, I anticipate that the Government's spin doctors will, as usual, be hard at work saying that that is an example of heartless Tories being cruel to sick children. Nothing could be further from the truth, and nothing could be more despicable than using the case of vulnerable children for party political advantage. Nothing that I have said tonight can justify such a view. Still less would it justify the cynical exploitation of the vulnerable.
A Conservative Government would honour all the new opportunities fund's existing commitments and reform the way in which the lottery works to make is less bureaucratic, more independent of Government and more responsive to the aspirations of communities and the needs of vulnerable people throughout the country. The order is symptomatic of a Government who are greedy for the public's money and paranoid about trusting anyone or anything that they cannot control.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I take as my text tonight the words of the Prime Minister, who stated:
We don't believe it would be right to use Lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibilities.
Those words have been quoted by the Government on a number of occasions, but seem wholly inconsistent with the intention set out in the order.
The Secretary of State is aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I do not believe that the new opportunities fund should have been established in the way it was, or that it should be re-financed as the Government propose. We do not believe that it should have a third of the total lottery funds.

Mr. Ainsworth: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Is it not the case that had he had his way, there would have been no national lottery at all?

Mr. Maclennan: That is true, and I have repeated it a number of times on the Floor of the House. I am conscious of the regressive nature of the lottery, and I observe that some of the poorest people in the country contribute to it, often evidently unable to afford it and with little prospect of any direct return.
The lottery was established by the previous Government and supported by the present Government, and is clearly here to stay. I am not about to spit in the wind on that issue of principle, but I do not regard the new opportunities fund as an appropriate use of the resources. If the Secretary of State starts to invoke arguments about where public opinion lies, that suggests that even the money that is retained for the four original causes will be at risk. I doubt whether those people who have been consulted in the manner that he described will have a different view about what is being spent on the arts or sport.

Mr. Chris Smith: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have given a guarantee to the four existing distributors for the arts, sport, heritage and charities that, at the very least, they will continue to receive their current share of the lottery for the duration of its next franchise.

Mr. Maclennan: Yes, I am aware of that. However, I do not think that the Secretary of State can do that and, at the same time, pray in aid public opinion, as that runs against the evidence that he cited in his opening remarks to our short debate. To be candid, the point of the lottery was to find money for meritorious projects that did not enjoy enough public support for taxpayers' money to be proposed for them by Government or voted for by Parliament. That distortion of the lottery's purpose is unfortunate and it contradicts the Government's intention, as stated by the Prime Minister.
Before I am asked, I shall answer directly the question, "Do you not approve of the objects that will receive money from the new opportunities fund?" Of course, I approve of them, as they all seem to be meritorious projects. Those that have already benefited from expenditure in the fields of health, education and the environment are all justifiable as objects of taxpayers' expenditure. If they had been put to the taxpayer in the kind of questionnaire that the Minister cited, they would undoubtedly have enjoyed support. Without question, many of them seem to be the direct responsibility of Government. Why, for example, should computer training for teachers be dependent on the largesse of the lottery, as it seems to be at the core of teacher training in the new millennium?
There are many other examples, such as healthy living centres. Public health and preventive medicine are among the most important central functions of Government and should not be dependent, as they have been, on expenditure from the new opportunities fund. I face squarely the issue of cancer funding. The Government have not shouldered that burden, but I personally attach a great deal of importance to cancer. Perhaps I have an interest to declare, although not a financial one, as I am a member of the council of the Cancer Research Campaign, which had spent £60 million at the last annual count.

No one could use me of not caring about cancer. That head of expenditure could clearly be described as one that should attract Government responsibility, not simply the vagaries of a lottery.
Those are not new points for me, or any Liberal Democrat Member, to make, and they reflect our consistent view. I welcome the fact—and this is a modest point—that several proposals emanating from the new opportunities fund appear to have been within the programmes of existing lottery spenders.
For example, let us consider the £750 million for sports facilities for communities and schools. The redistribution of that money to one of the existing lottery distributors could have been justified as being within the terms of the original lottery pitch. However, that is not true of some of the other sums. I regret that. I do not believe that the body should have been established and I shall encourage my hon. Friends to express our view in the Lobby on Wednesday.

Mr. Peter Brooke: In opening the debate, the Secretary of State referred to the Government's long-standing policy on the new opportunities fund and the allocation of resources. Perhaps it is worth outlining the previous Government's intention, which brought the lottery into being.
The House will recall that the original distribution of percentages in the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 was: arts—20 per cent; heritage—20 per cent; sport—20 per cent; charities—20 per cent; and the Millennium Commission—20 per cent. That distribution was not amended during the measure's passage and it emerged unscathed. The previous Government used those percentages throughout their time in office.
There was unease during the initial debate on the Bill that introduced the lottery about charities and the lottery's potential effect on their receipts from other sources. The only direct paradigm was the Republic of Ireland, and its experience produced a somewhat variable note. Some charities had no complaints, while others had clearly suffered. No amendment was tabled, but there was pressure to return to the question of how much money charities received when we had more experience of the way in which the lottery worked.
We included in the Bill the ability of the House to review the five 20 per cent. figures at least once a Parliament. The then Government gave a commitment to effect in secondary legislation the House's preference as expressed in a day-long debate. In the context of the problem of the charities, it was said that the 20 per cent. for the Millennium Commission was available as a reserve that could be diverted to charities. It was therefore conceivable that the charities figure could have increased to 40 per cent.

Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. Friend is introducing an element to the debate that I find difficult to understand. Is he saying that much of the pressure for support for charities came from the Labour party, which was then the loyal Opposition? If so, is it not incongruous


that their first act in government in respect of the lottery was to reduce the amount for charities? The Government have made no effort to restore the amount tonight.

Mr. Brooke: I recall that I gave way approximately 30 times during my speech, which lasted about an hour, on Second Reading. The question of charities was raised during the debate, and continued to be raised in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. I would be surprised if the question did not reassert itself in another place, given its natural sympathy for charities.
The Government chose a different course, and their initial trawl of ideas bypassed the House. The Secretary of State has described that course. Consultation, to which the Secretary of State referred, has taken place. It is not surprising that alternative producer interests preferred other uses of lottery money to those that had been enjoyed previously. I personally regret the paring of the allocations of other lottery distributors at an earlier stage to create the initial tranche for the new opportunities fund. That happened prior to tabling the order that we are discussing.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way —and delighted to see him here. It is only proper that I recognise the important role that he played in establishing the national lottery.
My right hon. Friend will recall that, as with charities, so with the arts. When the original legislation was passed, there was a great deal of pressure from the arts in particular for lottery money to be additional to, and administered separately from, Government spending. What do the arts make of the establishment of the new opportunities fund and the fact that from August next year, 30 per cent. of all lottery money will be taken by the Government?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the early stags of the lottery's gestation. I have said before in the House that a decent-sized architectural practice could be staffed by those who claim to be the architect of the national lottery. I made no claim other than that I was the master mason, but that was a pleasurable role to fulfil.
My hon. Friend is right that pleas were made by those supporting others of the distributors to increase the amount, though my judgment that the fivefold 20 per cent. figure would survive turned out to be right, because those who might have amended that figure to make it larger realised that someone else might amend it to make it smaller. He is also right about that concern; indeed, the issue of additionality was fundamental to the original decision that the money should go on capital schemes until we knew how matters would work out, perhaps for the better.
The consequence of the order is that the new opportunities fund will receive, if my arithmetic is correct, twice as much as any of the other distributors. Additionality is believed in by the Secretary of State, and I pay ready tribute to him for that, though he will recall a particular moment in the House when his then deputy—the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) —had no little difficulty in explaining what additionality was, and said that the Secretary of State would tell us an hour or so later.
I, too, acknowledge the fact that the new opportunities fund is supposed to be in charge of the money that it distributes and to be an arm's-length distributor in the same way as the others, but the then Secretary of State for Health wrote to tell me the specific beneficiaries for cancer treatment in my constituency before the new opportunities fund had written to me on the same subject, which suggested that the Government were using a longish spoon in the distribution of those particular prizes.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) mentioned information and communications technologies training for school teachers. Capita, which, as I understand it, is bestowing the training in this part of the country, has written to ask me whether I would like to observe it. I have politely responded that I would rather it started to deliver housing benefit to my constituents promptly and accurately before asking me to observe anything else that it seeks to do.
I have put to the National Lottery Charities Board the question whether the new opportunities fund's concentration on health, education and the environment means that the board will no longer be expected to make grants to charities concerned with health, education and the environment. If that is so—the Minister might care to comment—it will not solve the original problem of the charities almost certainly losing out as a result of the lottery, but it will make a small contribution to doing so. However, it will not take away the support that I offer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) and the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross in terms of the inappropriateness of that fund's diverting money, which was clearly being used by the then distributors responsibly and additionally to Government expenditure, to the uses to which it is now put.

Mr. John Greenway: The order constitutes the most telling evidence yet of the scale of the Labour party's change of attitude to the national lottery between being in opposition and being in government.
When the lottery was created, Labour spokesmen—then shadow spokesmen—made great play of the need to ensure that the principles of arm's length and additionality were an integral part of the decision-making on the basis of which good causes should be supported. Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) said, one current Minister at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—the Minister for Sport—strongly supported the additionality principle.
Actually, that applies to two Ministers. Back in 1993 the Minister for the Arts, the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), expressed strong support for additionality. And—as the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) reminded us—even on gaining office, the Prime Minister himself reiterated Labour's commitment to additionality, saying that this money should not be spent on matters that were the responsibility of Government.
The Government increasingly interfere in decisions on lottery funding, demanding that more and more money be ring-fenced for specific projects. More important is the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—who I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster


(Mr. Brooke) would acknowledge was the architect of the lottery, if he was the master mason—said in The Mail on Sunday on 29 October:
since Labour came to power, they have eyed the lottery pot of gold with avarice. Slice by slice it has sought to control it. It set up NOF
—the new opportunities fund—
under the specific direction of the Government and cut the share of funds to the other good causes.
The order takes us even further down the road of Government control over lottery spending, by awarding to the new opportunities fund all the current 20 per cent. of lottery funding paid to the Millennium Commission in order to fund projects that have been determined by Ministers. The debate is not about whether the causes that will be supported are worthy—[Interruption.] It is not. It is about whether it is right for at least a third of lottery proceeds to be spent under Government direction, and with the clear involvement of Government Departments.

Mr. Chris Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: Just a moment.
When we debated sport the other day, I asked the Minister for Sport how the £750 million for sport in schools would be spent. We are told that a forum will be established, including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education and Employment, but not local authorities. There will not even be a bidding process. In other words, Government Departments will determine where the money is spent.

Mr. Smith: The debate is about whether, after the flow of funds to the Millennium Commission has finished, lottery money should be spent on health, education and the environment. That is the issue, and it would appear that that is what the Opposition are opposing.

Mr. Greenway: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is about the mechanism, the architecture, of the lottery, not about which individual good causes will be supported.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster explained the original percentages that were awarded to the then five good causes. He expressed regret that the funds paid to those original good causes had been cut, and, in particular, that charities were losing out. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey made it clear that we would honour all the commitments made by NOF to the various projects for which funds had been announced. For example, I have already made it clear that we will honour the £750 million for school sports promised by the Prime Minister.
In his article, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon reminded us that sport in schools would be a major beneficiary of the redistribution of Millennium Commission funds. However, the decision about the distribution of such funds should be the decision of Sport England and the three other home country sports councils. They have the necessary expertise. The Government should trust them. As it is, it will be the Government who decide whether that money is spent.
I come to the Secretary of State's criticism. Arguably, more money for charities, including health charities, could be distributed at arm's length by the National Lottery

Charities Board, the very body that, as every hon. Member knows, is under greatest pressure from applications for good causes—more applications have been turned down for lack of funding. Is it not interesting that the very body that Labour, when in opposition, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster confirmed, wanted to see as an important fifth good cause—charities—should have been short changed by Labour in office? If the order is passed, it will be short changed not temporarily on the creation of the sixth good cause, but permanently.
In awarding the entire Millennium Commission funding to NOF, the Government have disregarded the effects of their cut in the funding of the other lottery distribution bodies. The cut in income to the sports lottery fund has already led to many worthy projects being turned down. More to the point, as the vice-chairman of Sport England pointed out in March, applications are being actively discouraged for lack of funds. Projects that would have been rubber stamped two and three years ago will now not be funded.
It is astonishing that Ministers could ever think that they know best where lottery money should be spent, when their track record in respect of the projects in which they have been involved has been spectacularly unsuccessful. We have already debated the abysmal mismanagement of the dome, the continuing uncertainty over the Wembley project and the likely venue for the World athletics championships in 2005. All those projects share the common curse of ministerial interference.
The Government came to power promising to create a people's lottery, but they are creating a "Government's lottery". The debate provides a timely opportunity for Parliament to make a stand on the re-establishment of the arm's length and additionality principles. I warn the House that failure to do so will project us further down the slippery slope, leading to a lottery where all the money is spent by Government diktat. Nothing would be more likely to destroy the public's enthusiasm for the national lottery. Decisions on funding should be the preserve of genuinely independent lottery funding bodies, not Ministers. For that reason, we shall oppose the order.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Janet Anderson): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has explained, the order provides that, after the extension period, all the lottery income that previously went to the Millennium Commission will instead be allocated to the new opportunities fund. He has outlined the many valuable and popular programmes that NOF is carrying out, or has planned. We want that good work to continue; hence the order.
NOF's increased income will allow it to make a real change in the quality of people's lives. I make no apology for that. Indeed, in the light of some of the comments by those on the Opposition Front Bench, it is important to remind the House what the new NOF initiatives are. There is £750 million for additional sports facilities for schools and wider community use. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has said that the Conservative party, should it ever come to power again—heaven forbid that that should happen—would honour that commitment. However, he has not given us any commitment on the


other projects, such as £50 million for outdoor adventure and other activities for young people. Would Conservative Members support those projects?
Would Conservative Members support the use of £300 million to boost the fight against heart disease and stroke, to provide extra money for the fund's current initiative to combat cancer and to provide palliative care for adults and children with life-threatening and chronic illness? What would Conservative Members do about that?

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am very confused by the Minister's comments. Is she saying that those very worthy objectives which surely should be central to all Government programmes would not be funded if there were not a new opportunities fund? That is the logic of what she is saying. Why is she now advancing a case for lottery funding that was not thought to be relevant or appropriate when the lottery was first established?

Janet Anderson: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point on additionality in the course of my closing remarks. However, I remind him that all the projects that I am outlining are additional to the extra money that the Government have already put into health and education. Would Opposition Members support the NOF provision of £200 million for child care?

Mr. Brooke: Is there not a difference between the way in which the lottery was established initially, when distributors were allowed to choose what they spent the money on—admittedly, at the behest of the then Opposition, with a concentration on capital projects—and the way in which, under the current Government, decisions on where money should be spent on health, education or the environment are being taken by the Government as their central focus, so that the new opportunities fund has to decide only how it should spend the money? However, I have to assume from the letter that I received from the Secretary of State for Health that the fund is taking Government advice on that matter, too.

Janet Anderson: I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It was stated very clearly in legislation that was passed by a majority of the House that more money would be put into health and education through the new opportunities fund. However, that money is additional to that which the Government are spending already. I shall deal with that point later in my speech

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Lady has asked a load of fatuous questions to which I have already given the answers. She has the misfortune of coming to the House with a prepared speech. Having failed to the listen to the debate, she is now stuck with her speech and asking questions that I have already answered. I have already told the House today that a Conservative Government would honour the existing commitments of the new opportunities fund. Although I am not going to set out in minute detail what Conservative policy might be, I said that we would review the operation of the national lottery. I have also indicated to the House that absolutely nothing has

prevented the National Lottery Charities Board, for example, from funding exactly the type of projects that we all applaud and support.

Janet Anderson: If I may, I shall deal with the point about charities later, after I have made some progress. I shall also attempt to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions. However, he has still not told us what Conservative Members, were they ever in a position to take the decision, would do with the new opportunities fund. We have to conclude from some of their statements today that they would scrap it.

Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Lady is working herself up into a complete lather about this. She should form no such conclusion. We have, however, said that we would review it. Why on earth does she not listen?

Janet Anderson: Whatever the hon. Gentleman might decide to do—should he ever be in a position to make a decision, which I think is extremely unlikely—it could probably be aptly described as the no opportunities fund.
It has been suggested that arts and sports have lost out because of establishment of the new opportunities fund. However, both arts and sports good causes will have received significantly more by the end of the current licence period than was originally projected. That is a fact and it is important to put it on the record.
As for additionality, although the Government established the new opportunities fund's broad initiatives, NOF reaches its funding decisions independently. Although we have given each initiative a clear focus, enabling the new opportunities fund to provide added value and complement Government and other lottery programmes, NOF is not taking over core responsibilities. It funds specific time-limited initiatives additional to core taxpayer-funded programmes.

Mr. Ainsworth: Will the Minister give way?

Janet Anderson: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman wants his questions answered; perhaps he would be patient and give me an opportunity to do so.
On healthy living centres, the Government remain committed to the principle of additionality. The new opportunities fund, like the other good causes, should only support initiatives which add to, and do not substitute for, existing Government-funded programmes. Healthy living centres help people to improve their health and well-being. The aim of the centres is to provide advice, information and activities, focusing on health promotion. Healthy living centres do not do things which are properly the responsibility of the national health service and do not undermine existing provision from other sectors.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) referred to IT training for teachers. The task of training all serving teachers in information and communications technology to bring them up the same standard had never been undertaken before. This is, therefore, a one-off initiative to give existing teachers the necessary skills and ability to operate in the 21st century.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister really saying that because expenditure had not been embraced by


the Conservative Government, the Labour Government therefore regard it as not core expenditure? That seems to be carrying imitation of the Conservatives a stage too far.

Janet Anderson: The right hon. Gentleman must remember that this funding is in addition to all the money that the Government are putting into education. This has never been done before; it is a one-off initiative.

Mr. Ainsworth: Does the Minister regard cancer screening as a core Government commitment?

Janet Anderson: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been, but I have repeatedly referred to the extra money that the Government are putting into health and education—millions more than the Conservative party did. These initiatives are in addition to that.
Lottery-funded IT training for teachers does not support the basics of operating the technology, but focuses on helping teachers to use the technology in the classroom to enrich teaching and learning and raise standards. Our commitment to improving initial teacher training, funded from tax revenues, will ensure that new entrants have the necessary skills from the start.
Comments have been made about charities allegedly losing out as a result of the establishment of the new opportunities fund. The evidence is mixed; some are perhaps losing, but some are gaining. However, I remind the House that the changes introduced on charitable giving by the Chancellor in his Budget will have a more marked effect on income to charities than anything else.

Mr. Brooke: Does the Minister recall the Finance Bill and Act 1997, which took away from charities a massive amount of money in terms of advance corporation tax—for which I acknowledge the Government are, a long time after, finding some means of making amends?

Janet Anderson: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has welcomed the changes that the Chancellor has introduced in terms of charitable giving to charities. I thank him for his support.
We have had a very good debate. I am sad that Opposition Members do not feel able to support the order tonight and I am sure that people outside the Chamber will take a message from that. I commend the order to the House.
Question put—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.

Division deferred until Wednesday 20 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000]

DEREGULATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18 (1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

That the draft Dereulation (Sunday Dancing) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.

Division deferred till Wednesday 20 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Motion made,

That, following the Order [20th November], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Mr. Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session. —[Mr. Dowd.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,

That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:

Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Hon. Members: Object.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July 2001.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Hon. Members: Object.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 21st December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Hon. Members: Object.

HUMAN RIGHTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Motion made,
That—
the Lords Message [12th July] communicating a Resolution relating to Human Rights (Joint Committee), be now considered;
this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution; and the following Standing Order be made:
(1) There shall be a Select Committee, to consist of six Members, to join with the Commttee, appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Hon. Members: Object.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Motion made,
That Jean Corston, Mr. Desmond Browne, Mr. Andrew Miller, Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd, West, Sir Patrick Cormack and Mr. A. J. Beith be Members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Heswall and West Kirby Fire Stations

Mr. Ben Chapman: I beg leave to present a petition organised by residents and businesses of the Wirral who are protected by the fire stations of Heswall and West Kirby. It is signed by 1,962 people who are resolutely opposed to the changes of shift to day manning only at the fire stations at Heswall and West Kirby as proposed by the Merseyside fire authority. The petition is signed in the main by constituents in Wirral, South, but similar views have also been expressed in a petition signed by constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford).
The petition sheweth
That it is proposed to change 24-hour manning at Heswall and West Kirby fire stations to day manning only and that the undersigned vigorously oppose the planned manning hour changes at Heswall and West Kirby fire stations in the light of the major and unnecessary risk that property and lives me would be put under if these proposals were to be implemented, given the minimum of four minutes attendance time that would be added.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for the Home Department to reject this proposal by the Merseyside fire authority.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — School Swimming

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Valerie Davey: Despite the hour, I am pleased to have the opportunity to continue the debate about the state of swimming education in primary schools and particularly to follow the previous debate on the order which has established further funding for the new opportunities fund, especially the£750 million for school and community sport from which I trust that school swimming will benefit, as it should.
During my previous Adjournment debate on this subject in June 1999, also in the early hours, I concluded on the basis of information from more than two thirds of local education authorities in England that the resourcing of primary school swimming in terms of time, funding, professional staff and facilities was a matter of serious concern. I also reported, from the same source of evidence, that the percentage of children in school able to swim 25 m varied from 99 per cent. to as low as 28 per cent.
The then Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), stated the Government's belief in the importance of swimming, both for its intrinsic value as a sport and as an essential safety tool that all young people should have. He informed the House that Ofsted was considering a specific survey of swimming in schools which, he hoped, would help to develop a clearer picture of school swimming provision and help the Government to decide what policy steps to take.
The Ofsted report "Swimming in Key Stage 2", subtitled "An Inspection Report on Standards and Provision", was finally published last month and is available on the Ofsted website. Some 301 schools were inspected in November 1999. I am unclear as to the extent of swimming lessons inspected, as the report says that, where provision took place before the inspection or was planned for, inspectors' judgments were on the basis of evidence from discussions with head teachers and scrutiny of their records. The report also noted that, where a school did not make provision for swimming, this was clearly stated on the inspection record. How many of the 301 schools did not make provision, and why not? How were the children at those schools accounted for in the subsequent statistics on attainment?
Before turning to the main findings of the report, I want to register my disappointment that only 301 schools were inspected, and apparently no overall survey was made via the local education authorities. By comparison, the joint report into swimming in July this year by the Central Council of Physical Recreation and The Times Educational Supplement contacted 769 schools and found that one in 20 primary schools does not include swimming in the curriculum.
The Government are to be commended on retaining swimming as a compulsory element of the primary curriculum even when—between September 1998 and September 2000—some relaxation was allowed so as to give priority to the literacy and numeracy strategies. The swimming curriculum includes not only teaching children, by the age of 11, to swim unaided, competently and safely


for at least 25 m, but helping them to develop confidence in the water and showing them how to rest, float and adopt support positions. Children must learn a variety of means of propulsion—using either arms or legs or both—and to develop effective and efficient swimming strokes on the front and the back, and—importantly—the principles and skills of water safety and survival.
Those are the requirements, but what is the picture of provision and attainment that emerges from the two recent reports? Both show a sharp decline in the time allocated to swimming. Ofsted states that 50 per cent. of schools report a decline in that time over the past three years—sometimes by as much as half. Three reasons are given. The first is the closure of local pools—especially learning pools—and their replacement by leisure pools that are often not conducive to the formal teaching of swimming. Secondly, there is the impact of the literacy and numeracy strategy and the resulting pressure on the remainder of the curriculum. Thirdly, increased costs are involved—especially for transport. The CCPR-TES report found that more than two in five schools ask for a parental contribution, which can be as much as £3.60 a week.
That confirms the statement made in July by David Hart of the National Association of Head Teachers. He said:
We are seeing a deplorable decline in school sport and swimming in particular, largely as a result of the enormous pressure on the core subjects and the pressure on school budgets … children are missing out on swimming which everyone regards as a crucial skill.
The Ofsted report also documents the worrying diversity in swimming attainment between schools, contrasting especially those in rural areas, where 91 per cent. of children reach the required standard, with those in inner cities, where the figure is 77 per cent. Ofsted found that nearly one in five children, or 17 per cent., could not swim 25 m unaided at key stage 2. That hides the more serious situation for schools in the free school meal band 5, where one in three, or 33 per cent., do not reach that level.
It is clear that provision of an appropriate swimming programme has not been an entitlement for all; those in the lower social and economic groups are more likely to receive an inadequate schedule. As the Amateur Swimming Association notes, there is a danger that the opportunity to learn to swim will become a privilege for those in higher income groups, while others will be put further at risk as a result of not having the opportunity to develop this essential life skill. That must be of concern to the Government who are so committed to tackling social exclusion.
A further concern, which I share with Ofsted, is that almost half of all schools make no special provision for children who do not develop sufficient competence in swimming, or who are unlikely to be able to swim, by the end of key stage 2. Ofsted also points to a minority of schools that do not cover the element of the curriculum relating to water safety and survival. Ofsted notes that this is "a worrying omission". It is worrying—especially because the 1999 report of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents showed a 50 per cent. increase in drowning in the under-15 age group; 54 drowned in 1999, compared to 36 in 1998. RoSPA stresses that deaths occur especially among those able to swim, but unable to recognise danger. To make an analogy with cycling,

learning to cycle for 25,50 or even 100 m is not sufficient to allow a person to venture alone on to the quietest road. Thanks to the Ofsted and CCPR-TES reports, we now have a clearer, albeit still incomplete, picture of swimming in primary schools.
For the future, however, monitoring needs to be improved. Swimming is part of the national curriculum, and it is not enough to rely on ad hoc reports. Within the regular inspection of primary schools, swimming provision should be documented. With this information, evidence-based comment on swimming standards can then be made by Her Majesty's chief inspector in the annual report.
Monitoring, however accurate, does not in itself improve anything. The Government must now decide what action to take. The priorities remain the same: the availability of time, funding, trained staff and facilities to ensure that all children have the opportunity to learn to swim.
The Ofsted report shows a clear correlation between the time allocated to swimming in the curriculum and the standards achieved by pupils. At present, there are no guidelines on how much time should be spent in the pool at key stages 1 and 2, and I recommend that some guidelines should be drawn up, requiring, as recommended by the Amateur Swimming Association, that at least two terms at key stage 1 or 2 should include swimming tuition.
Resources should be earmarked to provide lessons, and more intensive courses, outside school hours or during school holidays for children who are unable to swim to the required standard. As swimming is not a requirement within the secondary school curriculum, there is no obligation to follow up non-swimmers.
I pay tribute to the qualified teachers and instructors at primary and secondary school level, at swimming clubs such as AquaPlan in Bristol and in voluntary youth groups, for it is their skill and commitment that give many children a level of proficiency which, as is not the case in many other sports, they can enjoy and benefit from for the rest of their lives, into old age.
I thank BT again for the£0.5 million that it has contributed towards training primary school teachers. I trust that, given its proven value, that training programme will be supported with further Government funding. I also urge that swimming training be reintroduced into initial teacher training courses, to include the effective teaching of water safety as well as the teaching and development of swimming itself.
Within schools, funding has to be improved and ring-fenced, so that a parental contribution is not necessary. With an ever-increasing proportion of funding delegated to schools, the disparity in the cost of swimming needs to be reflected. For example, of the 90 schools using local authority pools in Bristol, in 19 cases the children can walk to the pool, and in the rest transport is needed, but with differing journey lengths.
Mention of pools brings me to the most urgent and costly of the requirements to improve swimming standards at every level. The Sydney Olympic games highlighted the fact that there has been chronic underfunding in swimming infrastructure over many years. It was revealed that there are only 19 Olympic-size pools in Britain. The Australian state of Queensland alone has more such pools than the whole of the United


Kingdom—and for the first time since 1936 our Olympic swimmers came home with no medals. Investment in swimming is a long-term requirement and necessity.
The situation in Bristol is probably reflected in other cities. Of the eight main local authority pools, one was built in the early 1920s, four in the 1930s, two in the 1960s, and the most recent in 1974. The city council is beginning to address that issue, and last September it set up a citizens jury. The jury did not make detailed recommendations, but it produced a useful list of principles for improving swimming facilities. In summary, members stated that future provision had to attract new swimmers, ensure access and inclusiveness in the widest sense—that includes meeting the needs of disabled swimmers—guarantee future viability, and invest in young people.
Bristol councillors are now drawing up proposals to link swimming pools to other sporting and leisure facilities, and to bring into the equation both school requirements and what provision schools may already have. A citywide swimming strategy involving leisure and education departments is both exciting and daunting, with the inevitable questions to be answered about cost and time scale.
Today, Sport England informed me of the work that it is doing to upgrade and develop new pools. It gave me a list of 11 such school pools. Interestingly, those receiving the greatest sums were dual use, and I welcome that, but there were only 11 pools on that list. My spirits genuinely lifted when, last month, Minister for Sport announced the creation of the School Sports Alliance to oversee the£750 million lottery fund allocated for school sport and community sport, together with further Government funding promised for future years.
The Minister replying to this debate welcomed that announcement and her Department's involvement, working closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I hope that she will be able to assure the House that the needs of school swimming, as highlighted in recent reports, are on the agenda for action by the Department for Education and Employment and the School Sports Alliance.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): I am pleased to welcome the debate instigated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey). As she said, she has raised this issue before. She is a well-informed, doughty campaigner for swimming in our schools. I wish only that she could initiate such debates earlier in the day, as this debate is even later than the one she managed to initiate with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office.
I reiterate the importance of swimming. It is not only important educationally; it promotes healthy life styles and exercise that, as my hon. Friend says, can be continued as an adult. As she strongly emphasised, it is crucial for personal safety. I hope that there can be no question about the Government's commitment to promoting swimming in the primary school curriculum. It has always been a compulsory element of the PE national curriculum. As she reminded us, it remained so even when programmes of study for the non-core subjects were

temporarily suspended to allow the national literacy and numeracy strategies to be established between September 1998 and July 2000.
Swimming and water safety are an important and compulsory part of the revised national curriculum for physical education introduced in our schools in September 2000. My hon. Friend detailed what children should have covered by the age of 11. It was important that the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and my Department took note of the concerns of the subject communities about swimming during the review of the national curriculum. As a result the programme for swimming was renamed "swimming activities and water safety" to emphasise its vital contribution to safety and a non-statutory programme was included in key stage 1, in addition to the revised statutory programme in key stage 2. It is also important that good practice in delivering swimming is shared and that teachers are supported. Detailed schemes of work for teachers, including swimming, have been produced to ensure consistency of teaching and to support the new national curriculum.
My hon. Friend mentioned the £750 million announced by the Prime Minister to support sport in schools. That, of course, follows the important planning work that has been done by my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and me in the Department for Education and Employment to produce the Government's sports strategy and the implementation work now progressing with the assistance of many partners, including representatives from the ASA, and being put into operation under the auspices of the School Sports Alliance.

Mr. Bob Russell: The Minister has given a very encouraging report, but when will all children receive the minimum two hours' a week physical education, not just swimming, which is part of the Government's aims and objectives? She will agree that 25 per cent. currently do it, but 75 per cent. do not.

Jacqui Smith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that I shall come to that point in a minute.
I will refer to aspects of the subject that particularly relate to school swimming later, but my hon. Friend raised the issue of the need for suitable facilities. Following the publication of the strategy, we are commissioning consultants to provide a full audit of local education authority sports facilities, including swimming facilities. Sport England and the Local Government Association have been asked to carry out a nationwide audit of sports facilities in England.
The Government are committed to raising standards in all areas of the physical education curriculum. As an extremely important component of the national curriculum, improvements in swimming facilities will be considered where shortfalls in provision are identified nationally or by local education authorities. I want to take this opportunity to commend the examples that my hon. Friend outlined of the imaginative use and development by local authorities of their swimming facilities.
We are seeking constantly to improve and build up the evidence base about what is effective in schools and about areas that require closer attention. To that end, and in an attempt to understand the issues affecting the teaching and


learning of swimming, we commissioned Ofsted to produce a report on swimming at key stage 2. It was published in November.
Ofsted's remit, in addition to its normal inspection requirements, was to evaluate and report on the standards of swimming achieved by pupils by the end of key stage 2; the quality and effectiveness of the teaching or instruction through the observation of swimming lessons, and any related activity, such as classroom-based work; the steps taken by schools to give particular support to non-swimmers or poor swimmers; and the curriculum and assessment arrangements made in respect of swimming, in particular, within the PE curriculum and, in general, as part of the whole school curriculum, making reference to the quality of planning, time allocation and organisational requirements.
My hon. Friend compared the Ofsted report unfavourably with the survey carried out by the Central Council of Physical Recreation and The Times Educational Supplement. It is, in our view, effective to use a section 10 inspection to focus in more detail on a specific aspect, as happened in that case. The inspections were comprehensive, involving observation and evaluation. That, of course, takes longer to conduct and evaluate than a survey such as that carried out by The Times Educational Supplement and the CCPR.
Although all information is helpful, the Ofsted report gives us some important qualitative information. My Department has welcomed the generally positive report, which showed that, in the schools inspected, four out of five children were able to swim 25 m at the end of key stage 2. It also showed that pupil attainment was satisfactory or better in most lessons; that progress was satisfactory or better in the majority of lessons; and that pupils made good progress in three quarters of lessons.
The report also showed that the teaching of swimming was found to be good or better in four out of five lessons. I agree with my hon. Friend that teaching is crucial to developing good swimming education. Nearly half the swimming lessons were taught by swimming instructors, the large majority of whom are experienced and hold nationally recognised qualifications, such as the ASA lifeguard qualification. A similar proportion of lessons were taught by teachers from the school, usually a member of staff with a qualification in the performance or teaching of swimming such as an ASA teacher's certificate. A small number of lessons were taught by adults other than teachers who have a personal interest in swimming and usually hold a water safety qualification.
It is vital that we improve the support and quality of teaching in swimming and in PE in general. Teachers in primary schools are not usually PE specialists. We recognise the need for support there, and that is why the school sports co-ordinators programme, which will have 6,000 primary schools involved in three years' time, will provide an important opportunity for training and sharing the resources of secondary schools, including sports colleges.
We recognise that PE is a very demanding, multi-disciplinary subject. We are working with the Teacher Training Agency and subject associations to develop support materials and summer schools to help with that. The way in which teachers are training is

changing rapidly, and it is important that PE and swimming keep up with innovations. We are committed to ensuring that that happens.
My hon. Friend highlighted the important issue of time. The Ofsted report judged that 85.5 per cent. of schools had satisfactory or better time allocation for swimming. We know that schools have concentrated hard on introducing the literacy and numeracy strategies, and we make no apologies for emphasising those crucial skills. I do not believe that there is a conflict in aiming for high standards of reading, writing and maths and for good swimming and PE provision. However, we have asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to provide good practice to schools about how to achieve the Secretary of State's aspiration that children should have access to two hours a week of physical activity inside and outside the curriculum.
Although most swimming takes place in year 5, an increasing number of schools are introducing swimming in years 3 and 4. Schools that target the younger pupils enable those pupils who cannot swim 25 m at the end of year 4 to continue to go swimming when they are in year 5 and year 6 until they achieve that standard. That is an example of good practice that, along with the opportunities offered by the non-statutory framework at key stage 1, points to the importance of starting early, not least because support can then be targeted at those who have not achieved the required standards.
The report found that 60 per cent. of schools funded swimming from their own budget; some schools were funded directly by the local education authority, and some LEAs targeted funding through "learn to swim" grants. LEAs tended to devolve the budget for swimming, and schools used that to buy back transport facilities to take children to swimming pools. I share my hon. Friend's concern that we ensure that good practice in funding for swimming is disseminated widely among schools and LEAs.
The report shows that there is some very good teaching in swimming lessons, that the overwhelming majority of pupils look forward to their lessons and that almost all pupils were enthusiastic and well motivated. However, my hon. Friend is right to highlight concerns that must be addressed.
Some aspects of the report concerned us. A large majority of schools made adequate curricular provision for swimming, but a small minority did not cover the full programme of study, in particular the area of water safety. Half the schools in the report did not make special provision for pupils who do not develop a sufficient competence in swimming and are unlikely to swim by key stage 2. My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the significant variation depending on schools' location and free school meals banding. That must be a cause of concern.
Other concerns raised by the report are that half of schools have no specific policy or provision for pupils who are non-swimmers or reluctant swimmers, and more than half of schools have reduced the time allocated to swimming.
I hope that schools will take note of the findings of the Ofsted report and will include within their development plans action to address the concerns raised. There are some very positive findings in the report, but we have to address the small number of very serious concerns. We will meet Ofsted to analyse the findings in more detail.


My hon. Friend is right to say that we need to be clear about the messages in the report. It is not clear, for example, how many of those pupils who do not meet the target of 25 m are non-swimmers, and we plan a meeting for early in the new year to consider that detail.
We are also establishing a small action group, which may comprise representatives from Ofsted, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the QCA and swimming associations. It will be charged with urgently producing a list of immediate and robust actions to address concerns.
The group will review the findings of the Ofsted report on swimming and any other recent research, and identify the key issues that need to be addressed to improve the provision of swimming in the curriculum. The group will

also make immediate recommendations to improve the standards and quality of swimming and especially to ensure that pupils reach the 25 m target by the end of key stage 2. I shall meet the Amateur Swimming Association in January, and I hope to meet other relevant organisations to discuss an action plan to provide more opportunities for swimming.
In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I hope that she is convinced that the Government believe in the importance of swimming and that we shall act to ensure that all children have that entitlement.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Two o'clock.